This chapter proceeds from what I take to be a current description of faculty evaluation: essentially a pluralistic, multilayered system that attempts to be objective but in which highly subjective opinion plays a prominent part (Gustad, 1961; Southern Regional Education Board, 1977). The criteria for retention, promotion, and tenure decisions rest on that convenient if shaky metaphor, the three-legged stool of research, teaching, and service.
The first and most important level of recommendation is the judgment of faculty peers carried out through data gathering, examining, discussing, and voting by department or division coIleagues. Though the structure varies somewhat with the size of institution, most institutions have one or more levels of review, from dean to academic vice-president and from college personnel committees to university-wide review and grievance bodies. In most systems, final authority rests with the president or trustees, though concurrence with lower-level recommendations is clearly the prevailing practice. Also in most systems, faculty members are heavily involved, and administrative decision-making power is demonstrated only enough to create some degree of tension between faculty and administration.