From: Julie L Rabine <jrabine_at_bgnet.bgsu.edu>
Here is a summary of the replies I received to my original postings on this
topic, (the original is at the very bottom of this message). Thanks to
everyone who replied!
Julie Rabine & Kelly Broughton
Bowling Green State University
Bowling Green, OH
*****
Robert Holley, Wayne State University (via email and telephone)
We have a systematic process of peer review here at Wayne State University
that includes job performance both for recommendations about merit money
and for promotion and our equivalent of tenure.
Librarians are part of the AAUP union but in a separate category called
academic staff. They are evaluated annually for salary review by one
committee which advises the Dean on merit increases. The committee members
have usually worked with the librarian under evaluation and they may call
on others who can testify to the librarian's effectiveness though this
rarely happens. The librarian also compiles a dossier that includes a
written statement and proof or evidence of effectiveness.
Another committee reviews for Employment Security Status (similar to
tenure, except librarians on this tract do not have publishing
responsibilities) and promotion. Members of this committee may also be
members of the salary review committee. This committee reviews annually for
all librarians not already having ESS or tenure. The committee bases it's
review on a "formal factors statement" of criteria of effectiveness and
also uses the dossier provided by the candidate. The committee is
comprised of people elected by union members. This committee produces a
written report which is given to the librarian and the Dean.
Both of these committees also have access to the supervisors' evaluations
which are done annually for all librarians not already tenured or under
ESS. The supervisor's evaluations do carry a lot of weight and do examine
the librarian's effectiveness based on the same criteria as the committees
(the factor statement).
Robert P. Holley
Interim Dean University Libraries
Dean's Office
3100 David Adamany Undergraduate Library
Wayne State University
Detroit, MI 48202
313-577-4021 (voice) 313-577-5525 (fax)
AA3805_at_WAYNE.EDU (Internet)
******
Ron Wood, University of South Alabama University Libraries
At the University of South Alabama University Libraries, our Criteria and
Procedures for Appointment, Reappointment, Promotion and Tenure calls for
"Internal and external reviews of the candidate's research/professional
development and service contributions...in all tenure applications, per the
following guidelines:
* Internal - Up to three reviews by USA Libraries Faculty members.
* University - Three to five reviews from outside the university are
required...The candidate, the chair of the P&T Committee and tenured
faculty of the libraries will each have the opportunity to submit a list of
potential reviewers who will be asked to comment on the candidate's
research/professional development and service contributions. . . ."
All of them are requested by the library administration (Dean or Director)
along with a copy of the candidate's vita and the relevant guidelines. Peer
reviews are made available to the administration and committee members,
otherwise confidential.
Our VPAA insisted, in fact, that the libraries be like the other colleges
in this regard.
As far as evaluation of reference, cataloging, etc., the internal reviews
help, but the primary input I rely upon comes from the Coordinators
(Assistant Directors essentially) for Public Services and Collection
Management. We are small enough that I get to see how they interact from
time to time also. We really don't have any librarians who don't interact
with others due to teams and committees, as well as the increasing
interplay between bibliographic control, reference, circulation, and
collection development and assessment. Librarians must also complete a
self-evaluation, which focuses on how well they met the goals and
objectives they outlined at the beginning of the evaluation year.
Dr. Wood,
Thanks. This is very interesting. How are the actual USA Library faculty
reviewers chosen? Also, when you say the reviews are "otherwise
confidential," how do you get around public records law or the Freedom of
Information Act?
Thanks!
Kelly
Glad to help. The reviewee first normally asks the librarians or faculty
verbally, then submits a letter to me. My office sends out a formal request.
All such records are treated as administrative/personnel related, which
management here interprets as outside the public records law or FOIA. So,
we don't believe we are circumventing the law, but following it. Wouldn't
you agree?
RWood
P.S. The letters point-up strengths mostly, so I don't find the letters
very helpful in other regards (suggestions for improvement, etc.). I would
like to move in the direction of requiring reviewers to answer certain
open-ended questions about the evaluee.
Richard Wood
rwood_at_bbl.usouthal.edu
Fax: 334.460.7181
Work: 334.460.7021
*****
Kenneth Murr, Clemson University
Peer review has always been a tricky proposition. Having served on and
Chaired several PTR (Promotion, Tenure, Reappointment) committees as well
as having served on and Chaired Clemson's University Grievance Board, my
experience is that peer review is not practiced. Instead, the peer review
is simply a review of the candidate's research with a cursory look at
service and other responsibilities. Indeed, probably more attention is
given in the Library to true peer review than any other site on
campus--mainly because most librarians share office space or duty time such
as reference desk work. With the rare exception of a team taught class,
most teaching faculty never see each other at work.
Here at Clemson, we have 12 full time and 4 part time reference librarians.
Over the course of a year, I will would with all of them at the desk.
But, I only work with 2 of the full time people on a regular basis. As a
senior staff member (equivalent to Full Professor), I spend a lot of time
(10 hrs/week) with the part timers. At re-appointment time, I am leery of
giving strong input (either for or against) on a person's professional
effectiveness based a very limited contact with a person. I have seen
colleagues head out in the wrong direction but still end up with the
information the client needed. So my initial opinion of their ability to
answer the question was incorrect. It is much easier to evaluate their
vita and accomplishments. Likewise, I have no idea if a cataloguer should
be passing 2000 or 3000 or 4000 items a year, but I do know what I expect
in the areas of research, academic achievement (a catchall for attending
workshops, taking classes, etc.) and service.
The following URL gives our policy and outlines our procedure:
http://www.lib.clemson.edu/policies/adp07.htm
I cannot say what effect a supervisor's opinion has upon the Chair, or the
Dean. But at the PTR committee level, they are just another peer. Years
ago a supervisor strongly suggested that a person's reappointment not be
renewed (10 pages of documentation attesting to the person's inadequacies).
The committee recommended reappointment and as did later committees until
tenure was granted. That person is still very productive and the
supervisor is long gone and almost forgotten.
Kenneth R. Murr
Clemson University Libraries
Clemson, SC 29634
krmrr_at_mail.clemson.edu
*****
Debbie Bogenschutz, Cincinnati State Technical and Community College (via
email and phone)
At Cincinnati State librarians are faculty, and we are covered by an AAUP
union contract. We have a peer-mentoring program that works with faculty
until the time they are tenured. Peer Mentoring Committee consist of three
people, at least one should be from the mentee's discipline, and one should
be from an outside discipline. I have just been assigned to mentor a new
member of the Information Technology faculty. We have also just hired a
new librarian, who I will also mentor, along with two other members of the
faculty. Our library has two faculty librarians. Faculty apply for tenure
in the September of their fifth full year. A report from the Peer
Mentoring Committee is evidence in the tenure application. As far as I
know, there is no formal communication between supervisors and peer
mentors. We have no system of rank.
A large college umbrella committee sets up the overall mentor process. The
mentors do observation in any way comfortable and appropriate (Univ.
counselors also are faculty). The help the individual in choose committees
and "keep them in mind" when learning of other opportunities. Mentors often
are volunteers.
Unsure of exactly what information is in the Peer Mentor Committee's
report. The college tenure committee sees this report, as well as reports
from the supervisor, the Dean, and at least two other letters from faculty.
Debbie Bogenschutz
Coordinator of Information Services
Johnnie Mae Berry Library (http://dogbert.cinstate.cc.oh.us)
Cincinnati State Technical and Community College
Cincinnati, OH 45223
513/569-1611
513/487-1611 (fax)
bogenschutzd_at_cinstate.cc.oh.us
*****
Phyllis O'Connor, University of Akron via telephone (with the caveat that
their university tenure and promotion procedures are currently under review
and recommendations for changes are currently being passed through faculty
senate)
All probationary library faculty are reviewed on an annual basis for
retention, tenure and promotion by all of the tenured faculty. The
probationer under review provides a detailed CV, narrative and
documentation based on the guidelines (I'm getting a paper copy of these)
and the faculty manual (available at
http://www2.uakron.edu/ogc/Rules/RulesByNumber.htm) that demonstrate or
explicate their effectiveness. The committee (all tenured faculty) rates
the individual and a recommendation letter is sent to the Dean with a copy
to the candidate. The probationers are always invited to attend the
meeting, but they rarely do unless they are specifically asked to clarify
or explain something in their narrative or documentation.
They also have a formal peer mentoring process where new faculty are given
a tenured librarian as a mentor. The mentor is from a different area of the
library/archives. The purpose of the mentor is to advise and look out for
the new faculty member. The mentor often becomes an advocate for the new
faculty members as he or she becomes familiar with the person's work.
Also, the mentor relationship has built some good partnerships in
publishing or in other projects.
Finally, supervisors do not do annual evaluations for faculty. While they
direct and lead the unit, and help prioritize workloads, they are another
equal peer with the remainder of the tenured faculty. Of course, the
supervisor's opinion of an individual's "quality of work performance"
usually holds a lot of weight with the rest of the faculty. Occasionally,
the chair of the retention, tenure and promotion committee asks the
supervisor to write a letter, but this is at the chair's discretion.
Phyllis O'Connor <oconnor_at_uakron.edu>
Assistant Dean, University Libraries
The University of Akron
*****
Sandy Herzinger, University of Nebraska - Lincoln
We have peer review for P&T here at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln. Our
three areas are performance, scholarly/creative activities and service.
When a faculty member comes up for P&T in their 6th year, he/she is
required to get outside letters from at least three reviewers as part of
the review process. Each year up to the 6th year, every untenured faculty
member must go through a reappointment process which includes a peer review
by a committee of tenured library faculty to determine if in the opinion of
the committee the faculty member is on the right track for P&T.
The Reappointment Committee of tenured library faculty use our Promotion
and Continuous Appointment Criteria as a basis for their recommendations
and advice. In each of the 3 areas the faculty member must demonstrate
excellence and their work must be significant to the libraries and library
profession. Much of the librarian's day-to-day performance is based on the
supervisor's judgement, but we also gather input from all staff. We send
out an e-mail to all staff indicating that the evaluation process for a
faculty member is underway and any comments can be sent to the chair of the
Reappointment Committee, who is that faculty member's supervisor. So
colleagues and other staff members can contribute to the process. These
comments are confidential. All that information is taken into account.
The Reappointment Committee is advisory to the chair of the committee; the
chair makes his/her own decision to recommend to reappoint or not reappoint
a faculty member. In the end it is the Dean of Libraries who makes the
final decision.
Each of the candidates also put together folders; these folders grow as the
faculty member's career continues until they come up for promotion and
continuous appointment (tenure). By doing this each year, the folder
business isn't such a burden in the 6th year. We have 4 folders as
prescribed by the university. Folder one is about the person and contains
current vita, job descriptions, past evaluations and reappointment
documents, list of professional development activities, etc. Folder two
contains items to explain and document the person's day-to-day job, e.g.
for a cataloger it might contain original cataloging and authority records,
etc. Folder 3 contains items to document the person's scholarly/creative
activities, such as publications, presentations, etc. Folder 4 contains
items to document the person's service to the library, university,
profession, etc.
Hope this helps. If you have further quesitons, please let me know. I am
a member of the committee responsible for the policies and procedures for
these processes and am also the one who wrote a number of our documents.
The documents are faculty approved.
Sandy Herzinger
Professor
Chair, Cataloging Dept.
University of Nebaska-Lincoln
sherzinger1_at_unl.edu
*****
Carole Armstrong, Michigan State University
Librarians at Michigan State University have continuing appointment rather
than tenure so you may not be interested in our information but just in
case---. Chris Miko will know the basics of the process here at MSU. We
review librarians on the basis of the job performance, scholarship, and
professional activities. We have a set of elements under job performance
by which each librarian is annually evaluated. At the time of review for
reappointment, the annual evaluations form the basis of the dossier. A
peer review committee evaluates the person's overall career using the
documentation provided by the librarian. If you are interested in more
information/detail, let me know.
Carole,
Who actually does the evaluation (based on the "set of elements under job
performance"), the supervisor, a peer committee?
Thanks,
Kelly
Annual evaluations are done by the supervisor but for purposes of
reappointment the Peer Review committee does the evaluation. The Assistant
Director and the Director both may comment and agree or disagree with the
committee recommendation. From the Director, the review goes on to the
Vice Provost and ultimately to the Board of Trustees.
Carole Armstrong
armstr15_at_msu.edu
*****
Kelly Broughton, Bowling Green State University
Librarians are evaluated annually and in writing by their supervisor. The
criteria for effectiveness are spelled out in the faculty handbook, but
there are no guidelines or requirements for the supervisors. Probationary
faculty (those not yet tenured) and those seeking promotion are also
evaluated annually by the Promotion and Tenure Review Committee which is
three elected tenured librarians. This committee reviews the portfolio
submitted by the probationer. This portfolio includes annual evaluations by
supervisors, as well as evidence of effectiveness in three areas -
librarian effectiveness, service and scholarship/creative activity. In the
third year of probation, and then again at tenure or promotion time, the
candidate also includes a narrative describing their contributions in the
three areas of performance. In these years, the probationer's portfolio is
seen and discussed by all tenured library faculty and the Promotion and
Tenure Review Committee summarize the input in a written statement and
include a recommendation to the Dean.
_____________________________
The original post:
In the interest of improvement, we would like to learn how other academic
librarians incorporate peer review into the evaluation of librarian
performance, especially in tenure and promotion recommendations. We are
specifically interested in the concept of peer review as it might be
applied to the librarian's equivalent of the traditional classroom
faculty's teaching
effectiveness, i.e. not scholarship or service, but librarian effectiveness.
Much of the library literature that discusses peer inputs for tenure and
promotion focuses on the review of scholarship and/or service. We are also
aware of the literature discussing the use of peer review at the reference
desk and in BI, but it mostly deals with performance improvement, rather
than the faculty decisions involving tenure and promotion. We have found
nothing that would be the equivalent for librarians who do not have public
service responsibilities.
* How do your faculty librarians judge the effectiveness of other
librarians in their daily responsibilities?
* Are your supervisors required to seek input from peers when evaluating
librarians' effectiveness? If so, is this process formalized? How?
* In addition to a supervisor's evaluation, do you seek input from others
in another way on the effectiveness of an individual librarian's job
performance? If so, from who and how?
* How do you deal with evaluating the job performance of librarians with
unique job duties or who are in positions that require relatively few
interactions with others?
* Are librarians required to explain or demonstrate their effectiveness?
If so how?
We would greatly appreciate any help you can offer by sharing your
practices and procedures. You can reply to me directly at
kmoore_at_bgnet.bgsu.edu, or if you'd prefer discussing on the phone, please
let me know when and how to contact you.
I will be happy to summarize for the list if there's interest.
Thanks!
--
Kelly Broughton
Reference Coordinator
Jerome Library
Bowling Green State University
Bowling Green, OH 43403
(419)372-7899
kmoore_at_bgnet.bgsu.edu
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Julie L Rabine email: jrabine_at_bgnet.bgsu.edu
Assistant Professor voice: 419 372-7421
Humanities Bibliographer fax: 419 372-7996
Information Services / Jerome Library
Bowling Green State University "Time flies like an arrow;
Bowling Green, OH 43403 fruit flies like a banana."
Received on Wed Apr 18 2001 - 07:11:37 EDT