Note: The file and recommendations replace a previous version that had been posted incorrectly. The following is correct as of August 19, 2026.
FAUW's follow-up with FRC
Explanation
In February 2025, FRC struck a joint Faculty Performance Review (FPR) working group with two FRC members from FAUW and two members from the University to review current faculty performance practices and to better understand differences in Faculty Performance Ratings processes and outcomes between and within faculties with the ultimate goal of improving equity in this process across the University.
The report highlighted the role and activities of the working group, and presented:
1) an analysis of FPR data for all faculties
2) a summary of survey responses from Chairs and Directors from all faculties, and
3) a discussion of defining the term “satisfactory” in Teaching/Research/Service, which should correspond to an FPR score of 1 according to the MOA Article 13.5.3.
Outlined below & attached as a PDF are a set of recommendations put forth jointly by FAUW and the University as an outcome of the FPR Working Group’s report and presentation. These recommendations have been endorsed unanimously by FRC. The Deans were encouraged to pass on these recommendations to Chairs/Directors in preparation for the 2025-2027 full biennial FPR process cycle.
Recommendation 1
Each Department is required to have an Addendum to their Faculty Performance Evaluation Guidelines setting out the performance expectations in the Department for scholarship, teaching and service (MoA Article 13.5.1b).
It is recommended that Faculty Performance Evaluation Guidelines explicitly require Departmental Addenda to clearly specify what constitutes less-than-satisfactory (a rating less than 1.0) and outstanding (a rating of 2.0) performances in each of scholarship, teaching and service. The revised addenda should be submitted to the Dean by October 15, 2026, in accordance with the MOA 13.5.1.b.
Recommendation 2
Nine of the 26 departments/schools that responded to the survey conducted by the FRC Working Group on Faculty Performance indicated they differentiated between “research active” and “non-research active” tenure-stream faculty. Definitions of “research active” typically included holding research grants and supervising at least a specified number of graduate students, although variability in definitions existed. In some departments, research-active faculty have reduced teaching loads. However, the normal contractual weighting for research for tenure-stream faculty is not zero (and typically is 40%), such that faculty members are contractually obligated to be research-active.
It is recommended to discontinue the use of the terms “research active” and “non-research active” for tenure-stream faculty. In addition to Article 13.5.3 of the MoA, a faculty member's research activity should be assessed in accordance with Faculty Guidelines and Departmental Addenda that make no reference to these terms.
Recommendation 3
Adoption of the above two recommendations is expected to result in (i) reduction of the average merit score to 1.5 or less in each of research, teaching and service, (ii) reduction of the skewness of merit score histograms, and (iii) reduction of unwarranted variability (e.g., between ranks).
It is recommended that analysis of merit score data along the lines informing this report be carried out on a biennial basis to quantitatively assess the effect of Recommendations 1 and 2.