Annual Performance Reviews Of, For and By Faculty: A Qualitative Analysis of One Department's Experiences

Purpose: Although annual performance reviews and feedback are recommended for faculty development, best practices and faculty perceptions have not been documented. The authors sought to evaluate the process in one medical school department that established and has sustained an innovative review trad...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:The journal of faculty development 2018-05, Vol.32 (2), p.5-12
Main Authors: Connelly, Maureen T., Inui, Thomas S., Oken, Emily, Peters, Antoinette S.
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Academic Achievement
Academic Rank (Professional)
Ambulatory care
Analysis
Annual Reports
Barriers
Best Practices
Career development planning
Careers
Coding
Collaboration
Communities of Practice
Community Benefits
Community Relations
Content Analysis
Deconstruction
Departments
Educational Benefits
Educational Development
Evaluation Methods
Faculty Development
Feedback
Feedback (Response)
Group Discussion
Interviews
Job Satisfaction
Leadership Effectiveness
Maternal & child health
Medical School Faculty
Medical schools
Medicine
Meetings
Mentors
Participant Satisfaction
Performance appraisals
Performance management
Population
Progress reports
Qualitative Research
Reprography
Research Tools
Self Disclosure (Individuals)
Semi Structured Interviews
Structured Interviews
Success
Teacher Attitudes
Teacher Evaluation
University faculty
Women Faculty
Womens health
Writing Instruction
Writing Skills
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:Purpose: Although annual performance reviews and feedback are recommended for faculty development, best practices and faculty perceptions have not been documented. The authors sought to evaluate the process in one medical school department that established and has sustained an innovative review tradition for 25 years. Method: Content analysis of faculty reports and immersion/crystallization to analyze interviews. Results: Faculty reports described satisfaction and dissatisfaction; facilitators and barriers to goals; and requests for feedback, with community, collaboration and mentorship integral to all three. Interviewees emphasized practical challenges, the role of the mentor and the power of the review to establish community norms. Conclusion: Respondents generally found reviews constructive and supportive. The process informs departmental expectations and culture.
ISSN:2153-1900
2153-1919