Introduction

The faculty of the Department of Film and Media Studies (hereafter FMS) at the University of Kansas is committed to excellence in teaching/advising, scholarship and service. Regular, rigorous review of faculty performance is critical to maintaining a vital and productive program. 

The foundation of faculty evaluation is the annual performance review, which is a continuing responsibility of the chair and faculty colleagues. The annual  process provides an opportunity to review a faculty member’s performance of responsibilities in the context of individual position descriptions and institutional and disciplinary standards, identify performance issues and strategies for development, renewal, or change, and assure that personnel decisions are sound and justifiable. FMS is governed in the process by the provisions of the Faculty Senate Rules and Regulations and the Faculty Code of Rights, Responsibilities, and Conduct, located in the Policy Library at https://policy.ku.edu.

Since each faculty member's records are a confidential personnel matter, all steps should be taken to ensure full confidentiality in all stages of evaluation, promotion, and tenure. The annual review and evaluation for tenure and promotion shall be conducted impartially and fairly. If faculty believe that a member of the process’s participation creates a clear conflict of interest or a compromise of the impartiality of an evaluation or recommendation, then the faculty member may petition for the recusal of that member of the process. See FSRR 6.1.4 Conflicts of Interest. No person should participate in any aspect of the promotion and tenure process concerning a candidate when participation would create a clear conflict of interest or compromise the impartiality of an evaluation or recommendation FSRR 6.1.4 Conflicts of Interest. No person should participate in any aspect of the promotion and tenure process concerning a candidate when participation would create a clear conflict of interest or compromise the impartiality of an evaluation or recommendation.

FMS affirms the right of academic freedom, to express oneself according to the truth as one sees it. 

Faculty members are expected to be active in all three areas of teaching/advising, scholarship and/or creative activity, and service. FMS subscribes to the University of Kansas Faculty Code of Rights, Responsibilities, and Conduct, and expects its faculty to live up to the duties as set forth in Article IV. Within that context FMS faculty shall be evaluated as presented below. Faculty may undergo six kinds of evaluations: 

Statement of Performance Expectations

1.Unit Expectations

a. For Tenure-Track Faculty:  When evaluating faculty performance, FMS applies the College and University norms of 40% for teaching, 40% for scholarship, and 20% for service. The department recognizes that the specific contributions of faculty members to the department’s mission may differ depending on such factors as career stage and administrative assignments. These adjustments will be documented with a Differential Allocation of Effort (DAE) or formal appointment to an administrative role, the procedures for which are described further below.

b. For Teaching Professors: In the University, the full allocation of duties must equal 100% and they must be configured within the following percentage ranges: teaching at 60-80%, scholarly engagement at 10-20%, and service at 10-20%. FMS generally assigns 70% for teaching, 10% for research and 20% for service. Teaching Professors are not eligible to have this allocation changed through Differential Allocation of Effort, but because teaching professors engage in contracts for term, allocation of effort can be adjusted within university parameters as part of the contracting process.

Teaching and Advising

a. For Tenure-Track Faculty: At a 40% effort, faculty are expected to teach four regularly scheduled 3-unit courses or equivalent per academic year. They are also expected to offer advising and to be responsive to department and university policy and directives concerning teaching, advising, and learning assessment. The department has no formal policy regarding the frequency with which faculty should accept requests to conduct directed studies at the graduate or undergraduate level, but views doing so as a voluntary teaching/advising overload and values such effort according to the ratings addressed below. Faculty are required to keep regular office hours and to be willing to make appointments outside those hours if the need arises. According to rank and assigned responsibilities, they are expected to support graduate students through evaluations, theses, dissertations, and other aspects of scholastic and professional development. Faculty are expected to strive for quality and achievement in teaching/advising consistent with university standards and department expectations described in the department’s Promotion and Tenure Guidelines, below.

b. For Teaching Professors: At a 70% effort, Teaching Professors are expected to teach six regularly scheduled 3-unit courses, or equivalent, per academic year and advise students. Faculty are required to keep regular office hours and to be willing to make appointments outside those hours if the need arises.  They are also expected to meet all department and university policy and directives concerning teaching, advising, and learning assessment as outlined above for Tenure-Track faculty.

Scholarly/Creative Research
The concept of “scholarly/creative research” encompasses traditional academic research and publication, as well as the creation of artistic works and any other products or activities accepted by the discipline for purposes of promotion and tenure. Commensurate with the standards and expectations described in the department’s Promotion and Tenure Procedures, faculty are expected to engage in and maintain an ongoing program of scholarship appropriate to their job title, research program and rank, and to strive for national and international recognition among their peers. 

For a complete, detailed listing of the criteria for scholarly/creative research, see section 2 below.

Service
Faculty are expected to conduct themselves as citizens of the university and as active members of their field and sub-disciplines. They are required to contribute to the well-being of the department and the institution through service, typically in the form of committee assignments. Contributions are typically distributed among the department, the College, and the university. A broader range of service to professional organizations, and to the larger national/international community, is expected after tenure.

For a complete, detailed listing of the criteria for the faculty evaluation process, see section 2 below.

2.Standards for Acceptable Performance for Faculty Members

Upon becoming a member of the faculty, all faculty are expected to achieve the level of quality in teaching/advising, scholarship, and service that is consistent with the standards and expectations for promotion to Associate/Full Professor or Associate/Full Teaching Professor, as described in the department’s Promotion and Tenure Procedures. After promotion and/or tenure, faculty are expected to sustain achievement in teaching, scholarship, and service at a level commensurate to that of their last promotion, as outlined in the department’s Promotion and Tenure Procedures and Post-Tenure Review Policy.

Faculty are evaluated annually according to the performance ratings of “excellent,” “very good,” “good,” “marginal,” and “poor.” Faculty must receive a minimum rating of “good” in each area. Should they fail to meet the minimum rating, the department chairperson and the individual will initiate a performance improvement plan (see section five “Outcomes of the Annual Performance Evaluation” below). Any faculty member who fails to carry out their responsibilities for three consecutive academic years may be recommended for dismissal from the University of Kansas in accordance with the Faculty Code of Rights, Responsibilities, and Conduct.

The FMS Faculty Evaluation Committee is charged with interpreting and applying the ratings in light of each faculty member’s career stage and research program.

Teaching/Advising
Teaching/advising will be evaluated according to the expectations described in the Department’s Promotion and Tenure Procedures. The appropriate distribution of teaching/advising responsibilities varies by rank. For junior faculty, the quantity of advising responsibilities such as directed studies, Honors supervision, and graduate committees should be managed according to the faculty member’s progress towards tenure and upon the advice of their faculty mentor. Effort above the expectations for/in excess of position/rank should be recognized. 

Excellent teaching meets the standards of Very Good teaching, with the addition of: 

• innovation in teaching approaches and learning assessment
• response to departmental and university initiatives and programs (e.g. collaborative and interdisciplinary initiatives, international efforts, and first-year and honors programs).
• consistently outstanding feedback from students 
• teaching and advising responsibilities beyond expectations of rank
• teaching awards (internal/external)
• collaborative research projects with students, and/or 
• creation of new curriculum. 

• proactively teaching required courses
• new course development
• greater commitment to improve teaching via training programs (e.g. teaching workshops, innovative course design/redesign, CTE programs, etc.) 
• evidence of greater teaching and advising responsibilities
• heightened participation in directed studies, Honors supervision, and graduate committees

• respond to directives from the department and university concerning required assessment of learning outcomes
• maintaining their load-appropriate share of the Department’s curriculum, advising, and mentoring
• supervising independent undergraduate projects
• participating in graduate committees
• seek peer evaluation
• demonstrate evidence of development of teaching techniques and materials. 

Annual Evaluation System

1. Overview

The Department of Film and Media Studies will conduct an annual evaluation of its faculty that will yield information for departmental planning, merit salary decisions, progress toward tenure and promotion and/or tenure review, differential allocation of effort, and strategies for renewal or development. The Department's criteria for evaluation and promotion and tenure will serve as the standard by which accomplishments are evaluated.

Evaluation of each faculty member is conducted annually by the FMS Faculty Evaluation Committee (FEC), made up of the department chairperson (non-voting ex officio) and three tenured or tenure-track faculty members, as described in the department’s by-laws.

2. Annual Report Preparation

Each faculty member is responsible for compiling an annual report with supporting materials that document both quantity and quality of effort in teaching/advising, scholarship, and service for the previous calendar year. These materials are submitted to the Faculty Evaluation Committee (FEC) by late January/early February. This time frame allows for sufficient time for the written evaluation report to the faculty member and the opportunity for discussion of the report prior to the timeline established for merit salary decisions. In classifying your work as major and minor, please bear in mind the definitions in the Department’s Promotion and Tenure Guidelines.

3. Annual Evaluation of Feedback Process

Each faculty member is provided with a copy of the Faculty Evaluation Committee summarizing their evluation. Faculty have the right to meet with the FEC to review the evaluation in case of disagreement. At this time, the faculty member also has the right to add additional information, as appropriate, to the evaluation record. The FEC will announce to all faculty the days and times the committee is available for this “check-back” procedure.

After all disagreements have been discussed and the FEC’s evaluations are finalized, the FEC submits its evaluations to the Chair. The Chair will finalize the evluation in a letter to the faculty member. The letter will also inform the faculty member of the opportunity to schedule a meeting with the Chair to discuss their annual evaluation.

In cases where improvement in a faculty member’s performance is warranted, the Chair will indicate, in specific terms, in writing, where the faculty member’s evaluations are unsatisfactory (i.e., marginal and poor.) Although the faculty member is under no obligation to do so, within two weeks of the date of the distribution of the evaluation letters, the faculty member may request a conference with the Chair of the Department to discuss their annual evaluation. Following this conference, and upon formal written request to the Chair, a faculty member may meet with the FEC to discuss his or her evaluation and may request a reconsideration of the evaluation by the committee. A copy of the written evaluation summary is then maintained in the faculty member’s personnel file.

4. Post-tenure Review and Integration into the Annual Evaluation Process

This section includes information for faculty members undergoing Post-tenure Review.

• FMS has elected to combine the post-tenure review with the annual evaluation given that the post-tenure review is conducted by the same committee that conducts annual evaluations. Thus, the post-tenure review and annual evaluation are combined into a single process. The committee will recommend outcomes in accordance with the unit’s policy.

• The Post-tenure Review committee will provide a copy of their report to the faculty member, who may submit a written response for inclusion in the post-tenure review file before it is forwarded to the chair for his or her review. If the chair agrees with the report, he or she will indicate that agreement in writing to the faculty member and place a copy in the post-tenure review file. If the chair disagrees with the committee’s evaluation, he or she shall explain the reasons for any disagreement in writing, with a copy to the faculty member and the committee.
• Results of hte post-tenure review assessment are used to determine annual evaluation outcomes are outlined below in #5.

Additional information can be found in the Unit’s Post-tenure Review Policy.

5. Outcomes of the Annual Performance Evaluation

The evaluation process acknowledges faculty accomplishments or shortcomings and makes them matters of record. It also may initiate the planning of individual career development and developmnet of the Department. It may assist in identifying opportunities for faculty improvement and renewal. It provides annual and cumulative data for merit-salary recommendations, sabbatical-leave and grant applications, tenure and promotion decisions, post-tenure review, and reassignments of responsibilities. Finally, it provides documentation that may be used, at extremes, in support of either recognition or dismissal.

Procedures for developing performance improvement plans
Under the University's post-tenure review policy, if the chair ascertains that a faculty member's performance seems to be failing to meet academic responsibilities, the administrator and the faculty member shall develop a written plan of methods to improve the faculty member's performance. The plan may include appropriate provisions for faculty development, such as campus opportunities for faculty continued renewal and development, or for other appropriate interventions. The chairperson may call upon the University administration for assistance in constructing such a plan, including provision for additional resources, where needed. A faculty member may reject any plan recommended to aid performance levels, but the faculty member must understand that a sustained overall failure to meet academic responsibilities is a basis for dismissal.

Responsibility for meeting departmental standards rests with the individual, but the Chair must assist faculty members to construct specific development and remediation programs. Faculty programs vary according to specialty and need. Faculty members required undertaking development activities as an outgrowth of the evaluation process will design a general strategy with the Chair of the Department. Together, they choose both a specific program and a departmental mentor to oversee the program and consult closely with the faculty member who has embarked upon it.

Procedures for addressing failure to meet academic responsibilities
If a faculty member has been informed that his/her performance still fails to meet academic responsibilities, the faculty member may request a review by the College, which will issue a non-binding recommendation on the appropriateness of this conclusion to the unit administrator. The administrator may change the evaluation after receiving the committee's decision, or may choose not to do so. In any event, the report of the committee will become a permanent part of the faculty member's personnel file within the academic unit and shall be available to the faculty member.

Department chairs (Program Directors) shall consult annually with the dean, and the dean shall consult annually with the Provost on the progress of any faculty member who fails within this category of failure to meet academic responsibilities.

Sustained failure to meet performance expectations
Based upon the judgment that there has been a sustained failure to meet academic responsibilities, the Dean may recommend to the Provost that a tenured faculty member be dismissed. In making this determination, the Dean shall consider the nature of the failure to meet academic responsibilities, the reason or reasons for this failure, the number of years that the faculty member has failed to meet academic responsibilities, the level of discernible improvement in the faculty member's performance after being notified of any failure in performance, and the extent to which the faculty member has complied with the terms of any plan developed to improve the faculty member's performance. The Provost will review the case and, if the Provost agrees with the Dean's recommendation, the Provost will recommend to the Chancellor that the faculty member be dismissed. If the Chancellor agrees and recommends dismissal, this recommendation will go to the Faculty Rights Board.

Should any recommendation to dismiss be brought against a tenured faculty member based exclusively or in part on grounds of sustained failure to meet academic responsibilities, both the report(s) of the review committee(s), the annual written evaluation(s) of the unit administrator concerning the faculty member, any outside evaluations, and any germane written response by the faculty member to the charges shall be made available to the Faculty Rights Board.

6. Faculty Development Initiatives

The university supports untenured and/or junior faculty through a variety of  programs. Programs and support include applying for grants for the improvement of teaching; information on paper presentations; attending conferences; and assisting in the application process for research scholarships and grants. For a complete, detailed listing of the categories see Faculty Development Initiatives on the FMS website.

Appendices

Appendix A – Categories for Annual Faculty Performance Evaluation Review Appendix C – Faculty Evaluation Results

Appendices A – Categories for Annual Faculty Performance Evaluation Review

Faculty Evaluation Categories for Annual Faculty Performance Evaluation Review

Faculty: Please make a list of your activities since your last annual evaluation. Use the categories and subcategories below, adding any relevant data not covered. A brief summary of what each faculty member considers his or her main accomplishments in teaching, research, and service is useful to the evaluation committee in its deliberations. The following list is to remind you of possible activities that should be brought to the attention of the committee, who will evaluate your work.

A. Teaching Activities
1. Courses taught
a. Service courses
b. Other undergraduate courses
c. Lower-level graduate courses
d. Upper-level graduate courses
e. Class evaluation scores

2. Advising
a. Freshmen-sophomores (include numbers)
b. Undergraduate majors (include numbers)
c. Graduate students (include numbers)

3. Examinations
a. Ph.D. orals
b. M.A. orals
c. Contributions to Ph.D. written exams
d. Contributions to M.A. written exams

4. Independent Study
a. Undergraduate
b. Graduate
c. Dissertation direction (chair of committee)
d. Dissertation committees (membership)

5. Course Supervision
a. Coordination or direction of several sections of a course
b. Supervision/training of GTAs

6.Other

B. Research/Creative Work

1.Results of research/creative work
Published books from scholarly presses, adjudicated films, videos, screenplays, chapters and articles, edited media compilations (audio and video), research reports, exhibits, peer-reviewed electronic/digital publications, annotated databases, special lectures or colloquia, papers, films, or videos presented at professional meetings or film festivals. Although peer-reviewed books and articles are weighted most heavily, substantial research/creative work contributions often appear in other outlets. In such cases, an explanation of the nature and value of the contribution should be submitted.

2.Research/creative work in progress
Archival work; sponsored research; grant, contract, or fellowship applications submitted; and manuscripts, films, or videos in progress.

3. Contribution of research/creative work to the university, profession, and beyond 
Financial support for students, invited lectures, media interviews, press coverage, consulting in areas of research/creative work and curricular expertise, and citations of scholarly work, integration of research/creative work with teaching are among the ways research/creative work contribution is determined.

3. Contribution of research/creative work to the university, profession, and beyond
Financial support for students, invited lectures, media interviews, press coverage, consulting in areas of research/creative work and curricular expertise, and citations of scholarly work, integration of research/creative work with teaching are among the ways research/creative work contribution is determined.

4. Research/Creative Work Activities
a. Publications
i. Published books from scholarly presses
ii. Films, videos, and media, including contributions in key creative positions
iii. Published refereed articles
iv. Scholarly media and databases (note if refereed)
v. Published articles in un-refereed journals, working papers
vi. Published solicited articles or solicited creative work
vii. Other published articles in conference proceedings and other books
viii. Published reviews
ix. Articles reprinted, translated, etc.
x. Other publications [pamphlets, reports, bibliographies]
xi. Work in progress

b.Research
i. External research/creative grants awarded
ii. International research/creative work grants awarded
iii. Research/creative work grants submitted
iv. Theses, dissertations, and privately circulated unpublished misc.

c.Conferences and professional meetings
i. Papers/creative work presented at professional meetings
ii. Attendance at professional meetings, conferences, film festivals

d.Other

C.Service

1.Service Activities
a. Departmental
i. Administrative duties (e.g., chair of a standing committee, associate chair)
ii. Committees
iii. Other

b. College
i. Administrative duties (e.g., director of a program)
ii. Committees
iii. Other

c. Graduate Studies
i. Administrative duties
ii. Committees
iii. Other

d. University-wide
i. Administrative duties
ii. Faculty Senate
iii. Committees
iv. Other

e. Other University related service
i. Alumni Association
ii. Kansas Union
iii. Athletic Board
iv. Search and review committees for faculty and/or staff
v. Student recruiting
vi. Sponsor/advisor of student organizations
vii. Participation in musical or theatrical groups, etc.
viii. Other

f. Service to the profession
i. Officer of professional organization
ii. Member of professional organization
iii. Professional organization committees
iv. Editorial work on a journal or report
v. Organizing a professional meeting
vi. Chairing a session at a professional meeting
vii. Consulting
viii. Other

g. Service to the community
i. Educational
ii. Charitable
iii. Consulting
iv. Other

h. Other

2. Awards and Honors