Table 1 Categories (A) developed from the analysis of the interviews; description statements (B) resulted from the interviews and making up the categories; and frequencies of the respondents' comments to the open-ended questions (C) which matched the statements from the interviews
A | B | C | Â |
|---|---|---|---|
Category | Description | Respondents Comment | |
| Â | Â | Percent | Number |
Purpose and objectives of evaluation | It has relatively minimal effect on mission achievement | 75 | 191 out of the 254 |
| Â | Evaluation exists in isolation from development | 78 | 198 out of the 254 |
| Â | Evaluation did not provide enough opportunity for promotion, retention, and tenure decisions | 50 | 127 out of the 254 |
| Â | Faculty members do not recognize the benefit of evaluation | 60 | 153 out of the 254 |
| Â | Faculty evaluation process has not been perfectly designed to assist the institution in attracting faculty members, helping them reach their potential, and rewarding their proficiency | 71 | 180 out of the 254 |
Criteria and standards of evaluation | Objectives agreed to are changed, so that they do not become the bases for the criteria to be applied in subsequent reviews | 58 | 147 out of the 254 |
| Â | Lack of criteria and standards for evaluation | 79 | 201 out of the 254 |
| Â | There was no differentiation between competent and incompetent faculty members | 46 | 117 out of the 254 |
| Â | The designed guideline are not always complying with standards | 65 | 165 out of the 254 |
Area of faculty evaluation | There is no multiple role approach in evaluation, so that faculty were not evaluated for all components that influence their performance | 79 | 201 out of the 254 |
| Â | Little weight is given to clinical and community healthcare service | 42 | 107 out of the 254 |
| Â | There is wide disagreement within institutions and departments concerning the importance given to teaching, research, clinical and administrative services | 63 | 160 out of the 254 |
| Â | In spite of potential advantages of program integration, there was no demand for applying these opportunities | 39 | 99 out of the 254 |
| Â | Scholarship goals neither specific nor fairly measurable | 64 | 163 out of the 254 |
| Â | Over reliance on student evaluation of classroom teaching evoked negative responses on faculty (Student-centered evaluation) | 81 | 206 out of the 254 |
Administration and procedures of faculty evaluation | Due to faculty resistance evaluation somehow fails. Faculty resists evaluation because they do not trust the reasoning behind it | 49 | 124 out of the 254 |
| Â | The tools for gathering faculty work data are not standardized | 67 | 170 out of the 254 |
| Â | There are possibilities for subjective evaluation | 59 | 150 out of the 254 |
| Â | Due to some insufficiency in evaluation system, feedback to faculty members is not provided | 69 | 175 out of the 254 |
| Â | Evaluation process is somehow unclear and non-directive | 61 | 155 out of the 254 |
| Â | Departments are not involved | 44 | 112 out of the 254 |
| Â | Faculty are frustrated because evaluations take time but yield little benefit | 56 | 142 out of the 254 |
| Â | The system does not provide adequate incentives (merit) for excellent performers | 63 | 160 out of the 254 |
| Â | They have not been treated fairly in the process | 51 | 130 out of the 254 |