The use of explicit, written criteria to evaluate college and university faculty is examined. Four major issues concerning faculty evaluation are as follows: the desired outcomes of faculty evaluation; the functions of faculty activity that are to be evaluated; the criteria that should be used for each area evaluated; and the procedures for implementing the faculty evaluation program. In general, studies identify two major outcomes: personnel decisions made regarding promotion, retention, and tenure; and feedback to faculty leading to faculty improvement. The major areas to be evaluated are teaching, research, and service. For the most part, faculty evaluation programs attempt to increase objectivity through both qualitative and quantitative approaches. To achieve qualitative objectivity, criteria are developed to improve the quality of data collected from an individual evaluator. To achieve quantitative objectivity, data are collected from multiple data sources. A critical issue in faculty evaluation is determining how data are collected and reviewed. At some institutions, faculty are expected to provide evidence of their teaching, research, and service effectiveness. Since the 1970s, there has been a trend toward systematic, standardized data collection. The role played by administrators in faculty evaluation is addressed. Meta evaluations (i.e., evaluating the methods of evaluation) conducted by Oregon State System of Higher Education, the State University of New York Faculty Council of Community Colleges, and the Southern Regional Education Board are examined. Appended materials include a form for peer review of undergraduate teaching based on dossier materials, guidelines for use of results of the student instructional report, and a bibliography. (SW)