As we all know, every department is different, and many experience much more drama than others. I have been involved in higher education over 40 years and have seen many good and bad elements of faculty evaluation. I have seen it where the evaluations have been used in a negative way of a good faculty member, but also have seen evaluations that whether intentional or not protect a substandard faculty. I believe faculty peer evaluations, if used should be used as a tool to provide suggestions for structural improvement and to protect the faculty member during the promotion and tenure process

The solution is to only appoint lecturers FROM OTHER DEPARTMENTS. They may not know every intricacy of your specialisation, but at least they will give neutral advice about pedagogy.

Maybe you could be interested in this guide https://goo.gl/okbPq8

If a proforma for evaluating the the achievements of the peer annually has been developed in such a way that the chances of biased observation can be reduced appreciably , that can help lift the overall profile of the whole faculty. However, evaluating in seminar format has been found, in many cases, full of biases just to letting down an individual in the presence of other colleagues. You have rightly said that evaluation can be used as an instrument for affecting promotion.

I received a peer evaluation by a member of the same department. I believe the course I was speaking she would have normally taught. Even though she could have been very harsh with the evaluation, she was very decent about it and provided constructive feedback.

I also received a peer evaluation by the Dean of the school during one of my first lectures and she was very constructive with her feedback. The critical issue was attendance by the students and even though the lectures were scheduled to last a total of 4 hours twice a week. By the end of the second hour and break, none of the students were left in attendance and it reflected on their exams which they took on computers.

Of course they aren't always fair. They reflect life -- and as we know, life isn't always fair.

So what to do? Train the evaluators.

They should not expect you to mimic what they do, what they think the best practices are. Most institutions don't train faculty, administrators to evaluate properly or fairly. I was a university dean for 15 years and a college president for 20 years. I also served on over 50 college evaluation teams. So I spent a lifetime studying the issue.

How to be fair? How best to help the individual grow, etc. ?

I found that most peer evaluators really want to help, a little training, sensible guidelines help makes the process productive.

There is also considerable responsibility on the part of the person being evaluated. Prepare yourself, and then prepare some more. Try not to be overly sensitive, overly defensive. For years I hated to be evaluated. Then I grew up, sort of, and entered the process with an open mind and confident I would benefit from the experience. It helped.

Good question!!!

No, it is not always fair due to many reasons including those you mentioned. External non-conflicting evaluation is a better approach.

Evaluations are rarely fair, or perhaps not often: fraught with preconceptions and false evaluating techniques. In the UK the main emphasis is on passing exams, not necessarily understanding.

I think independent reviewers of equal academic weight a far better option in such a situation. I believe bias is such a pervasively human factor amongst those fearful about losing their jobs in today's competitive and economically constrained environment. Nothing's fair in business!

To me , all of us regardless of our potentials , need assessment to keep growing and stepping forward. the basic interpretations are needed in this regard:

1- Do not underestimate one's potentials

2-Be creative rather than critical

3-Peer assessment allows team members to assess other members of the team as well as themselves.

3-Peer assessment provides data that might be used in assigning individual grades for team assignments.

4-Comprehensive rubrics that are agreed upon from all and that should exclude the ideas of bias and envy

In the same department "you scratch my back and I will scratch yours". That is how it works. You promote the others, so that they promote you.

In the end you have a department full of 35 year-old full professors, no assistants or associates... corruption at its best! I know several of these.

If you invite external people, they will do exactly the same.

Its good but to promote fairness, different lecturers from sister departments must carry out the peer evaluation.

There should be an instrument agreed too prior to the evaluation period. all parties to attending the evaluation session should undergo some training on the evaluation process and understand the criteria being used in the evaluation process. the instrument been used should be based on quantitative, achievable and deliverable objectives set in advance.

I think all the previous answers have given a complete response.

Certainly the subjectivity factor exists in peer evaluation, as I can guess in many, if not all, types of evaluation. Using a list of questions and criteria might make it more focused but this might have sideffects too (still subjective, missing out important points, unflexible)

In order to get more accurate results it is important to Triangulate. This means to benchmark with data from other peer evaluators or other types of evaluation.

Not exactly. It may be 50-50.

The purpose of peer evaluation is most important; for example if the university management uses it for promotion or performance evaluation then definitely your peers are your competitors so, in that case getting honest evaluation is not an easy task. If the purpose of peer evaluation is to fill the gaps that will help you to develop then it will be fruitful and your peers would act like your mentors.

Hi there,

It all depends on the objective of the evaluation. Its always good tohave a ocnsortium where facultymembers get together to improve each other. A feedback for personal as well as the dept development. I believe, it all depends on the intensions of the evaluator. I cant just say that all are in the race to dominate others.

Hope this added value to the discussion.

Azhar.

It differs in West when compared to other semi developing countries. Many a times evaluators settle personal scores if they do not like you. This is common problem in CW countries. All unfair means will be used.

Dear Borden Mushonga. Thank you for your question. I think this is an important point. Let me first remind everyone that in peer-review of submitted articles, grant applications and promotions we rely on peer-reviewers who do not have direct relationship with authors or applicants. Some journals even ask the corresponding author during the submission process to state 2-5 peer-reviewers that should not be contacted for any conflict of interest. These are the principles in scholarly environment and we should apply them in other situation. Coming to your question, I do not think that peer-review conducted by colleagues from the same department is based on these principles. Definitely it will be based on biases, either with favouritism to certain people or making poor reports against others that they do not like or have conflict with. The outcomes of this process is division, more problems and these reports will definitely lack authenticity and the whole process will be meaningless. Another point here, why everyone need such process? What are the educational benefits behind them? Do top universities use such peer evaluation?

To avoid such problems. Top universities have developed a system that ensure effective teaching and learning. This system may include the following

First, effective selection system that ensures that the teaching staff are scholarly who have international influence and significant contribution to research, teaching, and knowledge transfer. Issues such as invitations as keynote speakers, etc are requested from professors.

Second, In medical schools, many universities are currently requiring from staff to have at minimum a certificate in profession education or a master in medical/health education.

Third, Universities have introduced staff training and development system and all staff should attend a particular number of such training on yearly basis.

Fourth, staff who are poorly evaluated by students on two years, may need peer evaluation, and support but this should be conducted by independent body such as the department of medical education and this should be reported by three members with recommendations for improvement approaches.

I hope this be useful to you. Best regards, Professor S Azer

As has been pointed out by others, the choice of the evaluator is critical. However, I for one, would not be comfortable in being evaluated by someone outside my discipline. How would they know if I was providing correct information. That leaves two options, use senior faculty from within the department or get an outside professor in that discipline from another university . Our university requires at least one peer evaluation in order to make tenure.

I'd prefer an independent evaluator from same discipline as a rule, if I really felt I wouldn't get a fair appraisal in the department or knew the department was moving toward another staff member for the job.

As we all know, every department is different, and many experience much more drama than others. I have been involved in higher education over 40 years and have seen many good and bad elements of faculty evaluation. I have seen it where the evaluations have been used in a negative way of a good faculty member, but also have seen evaluations that whether intentional or not protect a substandard faculty. I believe faculty peer evaluations, if used should be used as a tool to provide suggestions for structural improvement and to protect the faculty member during the promotion and tenure process

It is always hoped that faculty peer evaluations are fair, but departmental politics can be very, very unforgiving and can emerge in the peer review process if not monitored carefully.

Great points Ashley and Gregg, I could not agree more. Excellent observations indeed.

I think its fair to only those who have rich value system embedded in themselves other wise its all about the politics not the educational system. Nobody takes it constructively and researcher as well as experienced fellow always exploit the system of peer evaluation.

Hi There,

It purely depend on the maturity of the faculty members of the dept.

This form of evaluation can be one component of overall evaluation than sole form.

This evaluation method is like a double edged sword.

Hope this will help.

Azhar