Maureen T Connelly, Thomas S Inui, Emily Oken, Antoinette S Peters
{"title":"Annual Performance Reviews Of, For and By Faculty: A Qualitative Analysis of One Department's Experiences.","authors":"Maureen T Connelly, Thomas S Inui, Emily Oken, Antoinette S Peters","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>Content analysis of faculty reports and immersion/crystallization to analyze interviews.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Respondents generally found reviews constructive and supportive. The process informs departmental expectations and culture.</p>","PeriodicalId":90982,"journal":{"name":"The journal of faculty development","volume":"32 2","pages":"5-12"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2018-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6241322/pdf/nihms-984224.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The journal of faculty development","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
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.
分享
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
扫码关注我们
