Skip to main content

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

From: Contextual adaptation of the Personnel Evaluation Standards for assessing faculty evaluation systems in developing countries: the case of Iran

A B C  
Category Description Respondents Comment
   Percent Number
Purpose and objectives of evaluation It has relatively minimal effect on mission achievement 75 191 out of the 254
  Evaluation exists in isolation from development 78 198 out of the 254
  Evaluation did not provide enough opportunity for promotion, retention, and tenure decisions 50 127 out of the 254
  Faculty members do not recognize the benefit of evaluation 60 153 out of the 254
  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
  Lack of criteria and standards for evaluation 79 201 out of the 254
  There was no differentiation between competent and incompetent faculty members 46 117 out of the 254
  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
  Little weight is given to clinical and community healthcare service 42 107 out of the 254
  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
  In spite of potential advantages of program integration, there was no demand for applying these opportunities 39 99 out of the 254
  Scholarship goals neither specific nor fairly measurable 64 163 out of the 254
  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
  The tools for gathering faculty work data are not standardized 67 170 out of the 254
  There are possibilities for subjective evaluation 59 150 out of the 254
  Due to some insufficiency in evaluation system, feedback to faculty members is not provided 69 175 out of the 254
  Evaluation process is somehow unclear and non-directive 61 155 out of the 254
  Departments are not involved 44 112 out of the 254
  Faculty are frustrated because evaluations take time but yield little benefit 56 142 out of the 254
  The system does not provide adequate incentives (merit) for excellent performers 63 160 out of the 254
  They have not been treated fairly in the process 51 130 out of the 254