Rethinking Faculty Development and Assessment at Olin College - A Community-Oriented Design Process

Oct 15, 2026

The paper describes Olin College of Engineering’s 2012 initiative to redesign faculty reappointment and promotion (R&P) by addressing misalignment between faculty work, the institutional mission, and traditional assessment criteria in the faculty manual. Using a six-step user-oriented community design process, Olin piloted a portfolio-based model that connects responsibilities to student development, college-building, and external impact. The resulting system adds developmental feedback, annual evidence-based reports, and reinforced mission-driven R&P reviews, offering lessons transferable to other institutions.

LanguageEnglish

CategoryResearch & Report

FormatPDF

Pages13

Reading Time33 min

AccessFree to download

Abstract

Introduction

Background: Faculty reappointment and promotion crisis

Response: 2012 revision and design process

Contemporary context for STEM advancement systems

References and related scholarship

| | Ad | vances in Engineering Edu | cation | | | | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | FALL 2021 Rethinking Faculty Development and Assessment at Olin College: A Community-Oriented Design Process ROBERT MARTELLO CAITRIN LYNCH MARK SOMERVILLE LYNN ANDREA STEIN VINCENT P. MANNO Olin College of Engineering Needham, MA ABSTRACT In 2012, Olin College initiated an effort to improve its faculty reappointment and promotion (R&P) system in response to a lack of alignment between faculty activities, the institutional mission, and the traditional assessment criteria defined in the faculty manual. Olin engaged in a six-step useroriented design process that guided the academic community through a sequence of conversationsand planning exercises. At the end of the year, Olin piloted an experimental system that redefined faculty responsibilities as a portfolio of activities to serve three overlapping purposes: developing students, building and sustaining the college, and achieving impact outside the college. These faculty responsibilities became the foundation of a new faculty development and assessment system that included additional developmental feedback, annual reports and reviews that generate evidence of faculty progress towards personal and institutional goals, and reappointment and promotion reviews that further reinforce the larger mission. Although the design process and the resulting faculty development and assessment system were responsive to Olin’s specific context, we believe that the lessons learned from this experience can be applied to other institutions interested in aligning faculty assessment categories and feedback processes with individual and institutional priorities. Key words: Faculty development, Faculty assessment, Community-oriented design process INTRODUCTION In 2007–2008, Olin College had many reasons to celebrate. Chartered a decade earlier with the mission of revolutionizing engineering education, Olin’s physical infrastructure, curriculum, ADVANCES IN ENGINEERING EDUCATION Rethinking Faculty Development and Assessment at Olin College: A Community-Oriented Design Process and institutional practices were still evolving even after the first students graduated in 2006. The founding faculty and staff worked tirelessly in these early years, and could point to significant achievements such as accreditation, curricular innovations, and graduating several classes of students. But unfortunately, Olin’s increasingly contentious faculty reappointment and promotion process had reached a crisis by this point, threatening to overshadow the college’s achievements and undermine its culture. Although Olin does not offer tenure to faculty, its early R&P policies and processes followed common institutional best practices. Upon the conclusion of each six-year contract and when requesting consideration for promotions between Assistant, Associate, and Full Professor ranks, faculty presented a record of intellectual vitality (including research), teaching, and service. The faculty manual explicitly specified that strengths in one or more of these categories could not compensate for weaknesses in others. As Olin’s first faculty cohorts began moving through the R&P process, tensions surfaced. The extremely high workload of the “startup” years, which emphasized innovative course development, institution building, and risk taking, did not align with the stated R&P priorities. Discussions between faculty and administration identified serious disconnects between the mission of the college, faculty aspirations and expectations, and the policies contained in the faculty manual. Faculty stress and disillusionment manifested in the form of angry conversations and meetings, de-prioritization of institution-building activities, and reduced engagement in activities (such as supervising undergraduate research) that faculty believed would “not count” towards promotion. In re

FAQs

Why did Olin College rethink its faculty reappointment and promotion system in 2012?

Olin’s traditional R&P criteria were not aligned with faculty activities and the college’s mission, creating tensions and a crisis that threatened to undermine culture and achievements.

What design approach guided Olin’s new faculty development and assessment system?

Olin used a six-step user-oriented design process involving academic community conversations and planning exercises.

How did the new system redefine faculty responsibilities and assessment?

It framed faculty responsibilities as a portfolio of activities serving three overlapping purposes: developing students, sustaining the college, and achieving impact outside the college, supported by developmental feedback and evidence-based reviews.

Oct 15, 2026

Uploaded by Nguyễn Văn Học