The faculty of the university provide instructional programs for the academic and cultural development of Linfield students. In order to maintain excellence in these programs, it is crucial that excellent faculty be hired, retained, and advanced and that the atmosphere within the university foster continued faculty growth and development. These requirements in turn require a fair and systematic procedure for faculty evaluation. To ensure quality and effectiveness of the educational program it is the responsibility of the relevant dean to administer the evaluation process.

Although faculty evaluation operates as a continuous process, in fact there are two distinct strands: professional development, which provides formative information to the individual faculty member and to the university; and promotion and tenure, which results in summative decisions concerning the faculty member's rank and tenure.

This evaluation shall apply explicitly to work performed under regular academic year contracts, in summer terms, and during the January Term, including online courses taught through Online and Continuing Education (OCE) and Teaching in Online and Continuing Education prior to July 1, 2019, may be counted under the heading of service to the university (IV.6.1.3) in consultation with the faculty member.

The above goals require that the process by which faculty members are evaluated be accompanied by provisions for improvement, allow full participation in the process by the faculty member concerned, and be responsive to the instructional and professional requirements of the university and its departments and programs.

IV.6.1              Basis for Evaluation

Evaluation of those whose primary responsibility is teaching will be based on teaching effectiveness, professional achievement within the field(s), and service to Linfield, their profession, and the community.  The evaluation of library faculty will also be based upon professional effectiveness in their primary area of librarianship.

IV.6.1.1     Teaching Effectiveness will be evaluated by students, colleagues, and the department chair. Self-appraisals by the faculty member concerned will also be used in the process. The faculty member should be aware that teaching effectiveness involves attention to several important areas, including:

• knowledge of and enthusiasm for the subject matter;
• attention to the organization of courses as it relates to the level and preparation of the students;
• organization and effective use of class time;
• high expectations for each student;
• respect for students' viewpoints;
• use of effective and fair grading methods;
• what students take from their courses;
• availability for consultation with students; and
• consistant and effective attention to the needs of advisees

IV.6.1.2     Professional Achievements will be evaluated by colleagues and by the department or program chair. Self-appraisals in the form of written descriptions of professional activity will also be used in the process. Evidence of professional achievement may include:

• research or creative work;
• publications and artistic or professional presentations;
• peer recognition by professional societies/organizations;
• study at other institutions for additional professional credential or toward an advanced degree beyond the terminal degree Linfield requires for the discipline (see this handbook IV.11); and
• professional practice and/or development necessary to maintain competency and credentials.

IV.6.1.3     Service to Linfield, one's profession, and the community will be evaluated by colleagues and by the department chair. Self-appraisals by the faculty member will also be used in the process. Evidence of service may include:

• regular and effective participation on university-wide standing committees of the faculty;
• effective participation in departmental and divisional affairs (including service as chair where applicable);
• work with student activities and organizations;
• direct assistance with the external relations work of the university (e.g., recruiting students, speaking to alumni groups);
• service to the external community using professional knowledge and skills; and
• service to a professional society/organization.

IV.6.1.4     Department-Specific Guidelines for Promotion and Tenure

To ensure sufficient flexibility, equity, and integrity in the evaluative process, each department will develop, in consultation with and with the final approval of the relevant Promotion and Tenure Committee, the relevant dean, and the Provost, a document that clearly articulates departmental expectations for teaching effectiveness, professional achievement, and service. The approved guidelines will be available on the Linfield intranet, For the purposes of this document, the School of Nursing and the University Libraries are considered "departments."

IV.6.1.4.1        Contents of the Document

The departmental document should include three sections describing appropriate forms and levels of teaching, professional achievement, and service.

The teaching effectiveness section will describe the department’s understanding of what constitutes teaching success both in and out of the classroom, including attention to elements included in IV.6.1.1. Departmental guidelines regarding teaching will include a statement identifying the role of colleague observations of actual class sessions.

The professional achievement section will reflect appropriate disciplinary standards and expectations within the candidate’s discipline(s) and will be defined by the candidate’s department. In practice, certain types of scholarship will be more prominent in some disciplines than in others. Likewise, forms of peer-valued public dissemination will vary among the disciplines and professions. The professional achievement section should include a description of the types and expected levels of scholarship, the particular kinds of public scholarly products, and the types of peer review that are most common and valued within their discipline, including interdisciplinary scholarship.

The service section may briefly define and identify institutional and departmental forms of service, especially those that might be unique to the department, but will focus on describing forms of service both inside and outside of the university to the disciplines represented by the department.

Department guidelines should differentiate between promotion and tenure of non-tenured faculty from promotion to the rank of professor and provide a set of clear expectations for tenure and promotion within the discipline-specific interpretation of the standards stated in the Faculty Handbook, section IV.6, Faculty Evaluation Process. The department guidelines should also provide a set clear expectation for promotion of non-tenured faculty (e.g., professors of practice).

IV.6.1.4.2        Review of the Document

Departments must be able to demonstrate that the department-specific guidelines are commensurate with external institutions and agencies (such as similar institutions of higher education, professional organizations, or accrediting bodies) as well as with Linfield’s values as stated in the strategic plan. The department, the relevant Promotion and Tenure Committee, and the relevant dean will agree upon demonstration of external and internal support of departmental disciplinary-specific guidelines. These materials should be included in submission of departmental guidelines.

The document must be created in consultation with the relevant Promotion and Tenure Committee, and the relevant dean, and must be approved by the Department, the relevant Promotion and Tenure Committee, the relevant dean, and the Provost before it is used as a basis for discipline-specific evaluation of faculty in that department.

The document should be reviewed regularly as a component of the department’s Academic Departmental Program Review.

Revisions should be submitted to the relevant Promotion and Tenure Committee and the relevant dean and Provost for review and approval.

IV.6.1.4.3        Use of the Document

The relevant Promotion and Tenure Committee will use the document containing the guidelines as the discipline-specific interpretation of sections IV.6.1.1, IV.6.1.2, and IV.6.1.3 in the Faculty Handbook, and therefore use the guidelines to evaluate the materials submitted by candidates within that discipline.

IV.6.1.4.3.2           Optional Use of Guidelines During Transition Period

Candidates for promotion or tenure may “opt-out” of using their discipline-specific guidelines during the transition period of adoption of guidelines.

IV.6.1.4.3.3           Use of the Faculty Handbook in the Absence of Guidelines

In the absence of approved discipline-specific guidelines, the relevant Promotion and Tenure Committee shall use sections IV.6.1.1, IV.6.1.2, and IV.6.1.3 in the Faculty Handbook in its evaluation of materials submitted by candidates within that discipline.

IV.6.1.4.3.4           Conflict of Interest (Applicable only to the College of Arts and Sciences)

No member of the CAS Promotion and Tenure Committee or any of its working groups may participate at all in the review of their own department's discipline-specific guidelines. It is recommended that any associate deans hold themselves to the same standard.

IV.6.1.4.3.5           Report to the Faculty

A department’s guidelines, once approved, shall be made available to all members of the Linfield faculty.

IV.6.2              Weight of Evaluation Categories

Of the three evaluation categories, teaching effectiveness is the most important. Excellence in professional achievement and/or service will not make up for inadequate performance in the teaching area; advancement at Linfield will depend on excellent teaching. At the same time, performance in the other two areas must not be slighted. Accomplishment in these areas must be present for advancement, with professional achievement being more important than service.

IV.6.3              Faculty Evaluation

All faculty members will attend professional development meetings to help them assess their progress toward advancement at the university and advise on their professional development.

IV.6.3.1     Evaluation Schedule (see Table IV-1)

For non-tenured faculty, professional development meetings will be held annually. For those on the tenure track, in the second and fourth years of appointment, the meeting will be attended by the relevant dean, the department chair, and one representative from the relevant Promotion and Tenure Committee. In the second year, there will also be a representative from the relevant Faculty Development Committee or Promotion and Tenure Committee. In years other than those mentioned above, the meeting shall be attended by the relevant dean and relevant department chair.

Tenured associate professors will be evaluated every third year and in the year of nomination for promotion. Third year evaluation meetings will be attended by the relevant dean. In years of promotion, the professional development meeting shall be attended by the relevant dean, the department chair, and a member of the relevant Promotion and Tenure Committee. Tenured full professors will be evaluated every five years. To meet specific program accreditation standards, some academic units may require more frequent evaluations than the schedule outlined above.

Faculty members may request that an additional Linfield colleague be present at any of the meetings. For evaluation for promotion and tenure, in consultation with the relevant dean, faculty members may invite colleagues who work in their discipline at another college or university to submit written colleague evaluations. Within three weeks of the professional development meeting, the convener will send a letter to the faculty member summarizing the meeting, with copies to others who attended the meeting. This summary will become part of the faculty member’s evaluation file after the recipient has had an opportunity to respond.

Where deemed appropriate by the relevant dean, the relevant Faculty Development Committee and/or the relevant Promotion and Tenure Committee, and the faculty member under review, and as a consequence of concerns raised in the evaluation process, an outside colleague-mentor may be invited to participate in the faculty evaluation process. An honorarium ordinarily will be provided by the university to such outside participants.

Table IV-1

IV.6.3.2           Student Appraisal of Instruction

Non-tenured faculty and adjunct faculty must have all courses evaluated. Tenured faculty members must have at least two courses evaluated each year, one at the lower division level and one at the upper-division level whenever possible. Evaluation of all courses taught is highly recommended both in the year when a tenured faculty member is seeking promotion and in the previous year. In cases where there is a question about a faculty member’s ability to perform at an acceptable level of service or to fulfill a mutually agreed upon condition of appointment, the relevant dean, in consultation with the chair of the relevant Promotion & Tenure Committee, may request evaluations of all courses. Each term, department chairs will send a list of courses not to be evaluated to the Academic Affairs office (McMinnville) or the administration office (Portland) prior to the release of online course evaluations.

Course evaluations will be open to students starting the last week of classes (or at a comparable point in a January Term course) and will close at the end of final exams. The instructors and department chairs can access results at any time after the academic term’s grading period has concluded.

When a course is to be evaluated, the online course evaluation link is sent to students from the appropriate administrative office.

The course evaluation will include the following instructions:

“Please read and answer each item carefully.

Your appraisal will be used to help improve this course, as well as to make personnel decisions such as tenure and promotion for your professor.

You are urged to provide written comments to make your views most useful to the professor and the others who will read these evaluations.

Your responses will be available to the professor only after they have submitted final grades for the course.”

The following rules on student course evaluations apply:

1.              To be included as the required student course evaluations under the faculty evaluation system, evaluations must be conducted using approved forms (Student Appraisal of Instruction and Appraisal of Clinical Instruction in Nursing). Beginning in the fall semester of 2014, the School of Nursing will use a modified scale of 1-5 (5=Strongly Agree) rather than 0-4 (4=Strongly Agree) on the Linfield University Student Appraisal of Instruction form and the Linfield University Student Appraisal of Clinical Instruction form, which applies to all School of Nursing programs.

2.              Keeping in mind that student course evaluations serve purposes outside of formal faculty evaluation, a department or individual may add supplementary questions to the evaluation form (i.e., in addition to those already required) Candidates may choose whether or not to include the supplementary data in their evaluation files.

3.              Individual faculty members and departments are free to use any additional form they wish for their own purposes, but such forms will not be scored by the university nor regarded as fulfilling the requirement of conducting student course evaluations within the faculty evaluation system. Candidates may choose whether or not to include the supplementary data in their evaluation files.

IV.6.4  Compliance with Procedures

Failure to comply with evaluation procedures (e.g., not securing the specified number of course evaluations) will be noted in the evaluation file and may be weighed negatively in personnel decisions.

IV.6.5              Policies and Procedures for Personnel Decisions

IV.6.5.1     Reappointment

Except for occasional non-renewable appointments which are used for such temporary arrangements as replacing persons on leave, appointments for non-tenured faculty are made on a renewable basis for a fixed term. Notices of non-reappointment for renewable appointments will be given in writing in accordance with the following:

• Not later than March 1 of the first academic year of service, if the appointment expires at the end of that year; or, if a one-year appointment terminates during an academic year, at least three months before its termination.
• Not later than December 15 of the second academic year of service, if the appointment expires at the end of that year; or, if an initial two-year reappointment terminates during an academic year, at least six months before its termination.
• At least twelve months before the expiration of an appointment after two or more years in the institution.

For cases of reappointment prior to the time of tenure review, the individual's work will be reviewed prior to the applicable notification date above by the department chair, who will recommend on reappointment to the relevant dean. Decisions will be based on the contents of the individual's evaluation file, including the records of prior professional development meetings. Non-reappointment will be recommended to the Provost and President when performance is judged weak and highly unlikely to improve sufficiently to warrant tenure by the scheduled tenure review date, or very likely to remain at an unacceptable level for the period ahead (e.g., teaching so inadequate that students should not be subjected to it in the reappointment year). For cases of tenure review, the full review process described elsewhere will be followed.

If the non-reappointment is made under IV.8. Reorganization, Elimination and Merger (REM) of Academic Programs, the policy and notifications under those provisions will be applied.

IV.6.5.2      Assignment of Initial Rank. The rank of new appointees will be determined by experience and degrees earned in accordance with university hiring. Normally, significant academic work beyond achievement of the bachelor’s degree will be required for the rank of instructor, and the appropriate terminal degree will be required for the professorial ranks.

IV.6.5.3     Promotion, Tenure, and Sabbatical Leaves. Promotion, tenure, and sabbatical leaves are granted by the Board of Trustees on the recommendation of the President and Provost. The President is advised on such matters by the Provost, the relevant dean, the relevant Faculty Development Committee or Promotion and Tenure Committee (for sabbaticals), and the relevant Promotion and Tenure Committee (for promotion and tenure). The relevant P&T committee will meet with any faculty member who is under active consideration and who requests such a meeting. The deliberations of the committees are confidential.

Early in each academic year, in consultation with the relevant P&T or Faculty Development committee, Academic Affairs will publish on its website timetables including deadlines for all stages of promotion, tenure, and sabbatical applications. A member of the faculty becomes a candidate for promotion or tenure by being nominated by a tenured member of the faculty. Relevant forms including faculty self-appraisal forms are available on the Academic Affairs website.

The relevant dean, at the request of the candidate, may add any material to the candidate’s file after the deadline for submitting materials for promotion and tenure review but prior to final deliberations by the relevant Promotion and Tenure Committee. The relevant Promotion and Tenure Committee shall be notified by the dean regarding any change in a candidate’s file after closing.

IV.6.5.4     Promotion in Rank for tenured and tenure-track faculty is a recognition of meritorious work in the three categories described under the faculty evaluation process in this handbook. The earned terminal degree for the individual’s field is required for promotion (see IV.9 ) except for cases involving exceptional merit.

Promotion to associate or full professor normally requires tenure status. Promotion to associate professor will not normally occur prior to the end of the fourth year as assistant professor, and promotion to the rank of professor will not normally occur prior to the end of the fifth year as associate professor. Years in rank will include service at other institutions identified as equivalent in the faculty member’s initial contract with Linfield University. Standards for promotion will be higher for the higher ranks, and promotion to professor implies special merit and accomplishments in all three evaluation categories.

Promotion for non-tenure track faculty is a recognition of meritorious work in the categories specified in department-specific guidelines.

IV.6.5.5     Tenure

Tenure is a means to two principal ends: (a) ensuring freedom of teaching, scholarly and creative research work, and service extracurricular activities, and (b) providing a sufficient degree of economic security for the attraction and retention of a competent and creative faculty. It is considered essential to the success of the university in fulfilling its obligations to students and society.

IV.6.5.5.1        Probationary Periods

The length of the probationary period, a negotiated “as soon as” period, and the year of mandatory tenure review will be noted in an individual’s initial appointment letter.

A full-time faculty member normally is reviewed for tenure in the penultimate year of their probationary period.

The total period of full-time service prior to the acquisition of continuous tenure will normally not exceed seven years served at Linfield or eleven years including all previous full-time service with the rank of instructor or higher in other institutions of higher learning. Scholarly leave of absence for one year or less will count as part of the probationary period as if it were prior service at another institution, unless the individual and the institution agree in writing to an exception to this provision at the time the leave is granted. There may be instances in which there are legitimate reasons to stop/extend an individual’s tenure clock. Any requests to change the initial/original probationary period must be approved by the relevant Promotion and Tenure Committee, the relevant dean, and the Provost.

In determining the specific length of the probationary period, prior professional experience at another institution or prior full-time service in a temporary position should be considered. The Provost will consult with the chair of the relevant Promotion and Tenure Committee when determining the recommendations for this period. In the initial contract of employment, the window during which an individual may choose to apply for tenure will be stated, ranging from an “as soon as” year to a mandatory year. The Provost may, upon the advice of the relevant dean, allow an individual to apply for tenure prior to the “as soon as” year.

Nominations may occur only once before the mandatory year of review. Part-time faculty shall not be subject to the seven-year provision; they may be reappointed annually without tenure or may be granted tenure in appropriate cases.

IV.6.5.5.2        Non-Renewal of a Probationary Appointment Prior to the Year of Mandatory Tenure Review

In cases not involving REM policy, notices of non-reappointment for faculty on probationary appointments will be given in writing in accordance with the following:

• No later than March 1 of the first academic year of service if the appointment expires at the end of the academic year; at least three months in advance of the expiration of the appointment.
• Not later than September 30 of the second academic year of service if the appointment expires at the end of the academic year; at least six months before its termination.
• At least twelve months before the expiration of an appointment after two or more academic years of service.

The institution will normally notify untenured faculty members whose appointments are being renewed of the terms and conditions of their renewals by April 15 annually.

In cases not involving separations per the REM policy, when a decision not to renew a probationary appointment has been reached, the faculty member involved will be informed of that decision in writing by the relevant faculty body or individual making the decision. Upon request the faculty member will be advised in writing of the reasons that contributed to the non-renewal decision.

Faculty facing non-renewal of appointment prior to review for tenure who feel they have been improperly or unjustly treated by a recommendation of non-reappointment for (a) allegations of inadequate consideration allegations or for (b) academic freedom violations and/or allegations that the recommendation discriminated on the basis of race, sex, sexual orientation, religion, national origin, age, disability, or marital status may appeal to the university Hearings Committee per the terms in (a) III.7.10.1 or (b) III.7.10.2.

IV.6.5.5.3        Tenure Decisions

Although it inevitably relies on accomplishment to date, the granting of tenure is a future-oriented decision. As such, it represents a confident prediction by the university that (a) the individual will continue to do outstanding work in the three evaluation categories described elsewhere in this handbook, and (b) there will be a significant degree of professional compatibility between the individual's contributions and the needs of the university.

Tenure decisions will be based on the individual’s complete evaluation file, which for such decisions will include evaluations and tenure recommendations requested from all tenured members of the individual’s department(s) (and for School of Nursing faculty, the Dean of Nursing). Except for cases of exceptional merit, possession of the appropriate terminal degree will be required for granting tenure.

IV.6.5.5.4        Termination of Appointments of Faculty with Tenure

Faculty with tenure may only have their appointments terminated by the University for adequate cause or as part of the reorganization, elimination, or merger of an academic program under the REM Policy (IV.7). The appointment of a faculty member with tenure will not be terminated in favor of retaining a faculty member without tenure except in extraordinary circumstances where a serious distortion of the academic program would otherwise result.

IV.6.5.5.4.1           Termination of Appointments of Faculty with Tenure for Cause

Adequate cause for a dismissal will be related, directly and substantially, to the fitness of faculty members in their professional capacities as teachers or researchers. Dismissal will not be used to restrain faculty members in their exercise of academic freedom or other rights of American citizens.

Dismissal of a faculty member with continuous tenure will be preceded by

• discussions between the faculty member and appropriate administrative officers looking toward a mutual resolution
• review by the university Hearings Committee per the terms in III.7.10.3
• a statement of charges framed with reasonable particularity by the President or designee.

Pending a final decision by the university Hearings Committee, the faculty member will be suspended, or assigned to other duties in lieu of suspension, only if immediate harm to the faculty member or others is threatened by continuance. Before suspending a faculty member, pending an ultimate determination of the faculty member’s status through the institution’s hearing procedures, the administration will consult with the relevant Promotion & Tenure Committee concerning the propriety, the length, and the other conditions of the suspension. A suspension that is intended to be final is a dismissal and will be treated as such. Salary will continue during the period of the suspension.

Service of notice of hearing with specific charges in writing will be made at least twenty (20) days prior to the hearing. The faculty member may waive a hearing or may respond to the charges in writing at any time before the hearing. If the faculty member waives a hearing but denies the charges or asserts that the charges do not support a finding of adequate cause, the university Hearings Committee will evaluate all available evidence and rest its recommendation upon the evidence in the record.

IV.6.5.5.5        Denial of Promotion and/or Tenure.

In the event of a no recommendation of promotion and/or tenure, the Provost, the relevant dean and the chair of the relevant Promotion and Tenure Committee will meet with the faculty member concerned to explain the reasons for the negative decision. The faculty member concerned may invite one tenured member of the faculty to also attend the meeting. In that event, timely notification will be given to the other attendees.

IV.6.5.5.6                    Non-Renewal of Appointment Due to Denial of Tenure (Mandatory Year of Review)

The policies in this section apply to denial of tenure if such denial requires non-renewal of appointment. A faculty member will be notified in writing by the relevant Promotion and Tenure committee chair if the committee reaches a negative tenure decision, or by the President if the President plans to recommend denial of tenure counter to a favorable recommendation from the relevant Promotion and Tenure committee. In order to allow sufficient time for an adequate review, the faculty member will be informed in either case as soon as is reasonably possible that a recommendation of non-reappointment will be made to the Board of Trustees, which would typically take place at the February Board meeting. Necessarily, review of these cases will primarily take place in January of a given year.

Faculty facing non-renewal of appointment due to denial of tenure who feel they have been improperly or unjustly treated by a recommendation of non-reappointment for (a) allegations of inadequate consideration allegations or for (b) academic freedom violations and/or allegations that the recommendation discriminated on the basis of race, sex, sexual orientation, religion, national origin, age, disability, or marital status may appeal to the university Hearings Committee per the terms in (a) III.7.10.1 or (b) III.7.10.2. Renumber

IV.6.5.5.6.1 Notice of Reasons

Having been given orally the reasons that contributed to the decision against reappointment, the faculty member, to avoid misunderstanding, may request that they be confirmed in writing. If the department chair or other appropriate institutional officer to whom the request is made believes that confirming the oral statement in writing may be damaging to the faculty member, it would be desirable for that officer to explain the possible adverse consequences thereof. If, following this explanation, the faculty member continues to request a written statement, the request should be honored.