Faculty Evaluation Plan, Museum Studies Program
Policy
Purpose:
To articulate the standards and procedures for the annual evaluation of faculty within the Museum Studies Program.
Applies to:
Faculty within the Museum Studies Program
Campus:
Lawrence
Table of Contents:
Policy Statement:
INTRODUCTION
The faculty of the Museum Studies Program (MUSE) at the University of Kansas are committed to excellence in research, teaching, and service. Regular, rigorous faculty review is a critical part of our commitment of maintaining a vital and productive program.
The purposes of evaluation of faculty performance are to assess the effectiveness of performance, to support continued effectiveness, and to assure that personnel decisions are sound and justifiable. The foundation of faculty evaluation is the annual performance review. We view systematic and rigorous evaluation as a continuing responsibility of the Director and faculty colleagues (those closest to the day-to-day performance of duties). The annual evaluation process provides an opportunity for the Director and colleagues to review progress toward performance of responsibilities in the context of professional and institutional goals, and to identify performance issues and strategies for development, renewal, or change.
The consideration and evaluation of a faculty member’s record is a confidential personnel matter, and all steps will be taken to ensure full confidentiality in all stages of evaluation, promotion, and tenure.
The process of a faculty member’s annual review shall be conducted impartially and fairly. Any members involved in the process who have a clear conflict of interest or who could otherwise compromise the impartiality of the process may be asked to recuse themselves from participating; the faculty member being evaluated may also petition for the recusal of any member of the process who the candidate feels may jeopardize the impartiality of the evaluation.
MUSE affirms the principle of academic freedom, the right to express oneself according to the truth as one sees it. Faculty members have the obligation, however, to exercise academic freedom responsibly.
What follows is MUSE’s statement on expectations of faculty members for purposes of annual review.
Faculty members are expected to be actively engaged in all three areas of research, teaching, and service.
STATEMENT OF PERFORMANCE EXPECTATIONS
1. Unit Expectations
Research
Faculty members are expected to engage in scholarly research and/or museum practice and contribute to the intellectual discourse in MUSE and affiliated disciplines. As an interdisciplinary program that draws faculty members from multiple disciplines, as well as those with interdisciplinary background, both the qualitative and quantitative expectations of research are contingent on the faculty member’s discipline or disciplinary standards. Further, as a field defined by professional practice with and in museums, scholarship can take many forms.
In light of variations in each faculty member’s scholarly practice, we recognize the need for an inclusive evaluation system for scholarship, as well as the need for the evaluators to be sensitive to the variability of research production across fields. Each of our joint-appointed faculty members will be regularly evaluated by their primary and secondary units. MUSE expects faculty to conform to the standards established in those disciplines. Faculty holding appointments in MUSE (whether joint or full-time) will be evaluated according to MUSE’s standards.
The MUSE Program expects its faculty members to make the study and/or application of museum theory and practice their primary focus of research. Documentation of research activity includes information on publications (e.g., copies of publications, correspondence with editors and presses), presentation of research at relevant scholarly gatherings, reviews from publishers and peers, the reputation of the venues (e.g., presses, journals, museums, galleries) where outputs appear, published reviews of scholarship, citations of publications, and seeking and attaining research grants and fellowships.
Teaching
MUSE views teaching effectiveness as a vital responsibility of a faculty member, and it is an important factor in their evaluation. Effective teaching refers to the faculty member’s dissemination of knowledge to enhance students’ skills and foster intellectual growth. MUSE is an interdisciplinary program and some faculty members teach both courses specifically designed as MUSE courses, as well as courses that are cross-listed with other departments and programs. Students’ quantitative and qualitative evaluation on forms (for all courses taught), peer evaluations (before tenure and at least every three years following tenure), teaching honors and awards, course syllabi and instructional materials/exams, participation in curriculum development for the program, and innovations in teaching provide documentation of the quality of a faculty member’s teaching.
Every faculty member is expected to maintain regular, posted office hours each week and should provide program staff with a schedule of office hours.
Academic advising is an important aspect of the teaching responsibilities of all faculty members. Faculty members are expected to understand how requirements and courses fit into the overall degree structure and help students to successfully plan their academic studies in consultation with program staff.
Service
Service is an essential part of academic life, and faculty members are expected to perform their fair share of service responsibilities. Faculty members should contribute appropriate service at the level of the MUSE Program, the College and University, the wider community, and their profession. In joint appointments, we also recognize their contributions to their jointly appointed unit. The MUSE Program recognizes that the joint appointment status of many faculty often requires extensive program/departmental-level service. In evaluation, we recognize this when assessing service contributions at other levels.
2. Standards for Acceptable Performance for Faculty Members
Faculty members are annually evaluated in terms of whether they have met the acceptable performance standards in the responsibilities of research, teaching, and service. The standards are excellent (4), very good (3), good (2), marginal (1), and poor (0). To meet acceptable performance standards, a faculty member must receive a good annual rating in the areas of research, teaching, and service; strong faculty members are likely to exceed these expectations.
Acceptable levels of performance are indicated by the regular receipt of a rating of “good” or higher as described in the Evaluation Scale (Appendix B). If a faculty member receives a rating of “marginal” or “poor,” a remediation plan will be developed in collaboration with the Director. A pattern of sustained failure to meet expectations (defined as ratings of “marginal” or “poor” in each category over a three-year period) may lead to sanction from the program and/or College, including contractual reallocation of effort or the initiation of dismissal proceedings.
3. Allocations of Effort
Guidelines listed in this policy assume a “standard” tenure-track/tenured faculty contract of 40% research, 40% teaching, and 20% service. For faculty members whose allocation of effort differs from these standard proportions, the quantitative aspects of the benchmarks listed in Appendix B shall be scaled up or down, accordingly.
ANNUAL EVALUATION SYSTEM
1. Overview
The performance evaluation process is initiated each year in the program through notification from the Director of the timeliness for submission of the evaluation portfolio. This notification is usually given in December and often sets a deadline in late January for submission of materials.
Each faculty member is responsible for maintaining a portfolio documenting both quantity and quality of effort in research, teaching, and service. The Program Evaluation Committee (PEC) is responsible for faculty evaluation.
The PEC will be composed of faculty with listed FTE in the program. It will consist of a minimum of three members, one of whom may be the Director, and, staffing permitting, will be composed of faculty at a variety of ranks. If program staffing or scheduled leaves prevent full staffing of the PEC, the Director will appoint an additional committee member or members from among the program’s affiliate faculty in tenured or tenure-track positions. Faculty cannot self-evaluate, and those with conflicts of interest must abstain from evaluation of those with whom there is a known conflict.
Near the end of the fall semester, the Director will notify faculty members that they should update their curriculum vitae and fill out the three annual self-evaluations for research, teaching, and service, indicating what ratings they believe they deserve in each category; see Appendix A for the forms that Faculty should use. All materials should be submitted electronically by the announced deadline.
The PEC is responsible for evaluating this material. The PEC will complete faculty evaluations by the end of February and submit their scores to the Director, who has the final say on faculty evaluation scores. The Director will complete scoring by the end of March to ensure that there is time for faculty members to adequately discuss the results of the evaluation and, if necessary, to appeal the Director’s decision (for details on the appeals process, see section 4 below).
2. Portfolio or Annual Report Review and Evaluation
In the evaluation of faculty members, both a quantitative and a qualitative assessment is made of research, teaching, and service activities. To assess the accomplishments of faculty members during the prior calendar year, all faculty must submit the following for annual evaluation:
I. Updated curriculum vitae
II. Three self-evaluations (research, teaching, service)
III. Electronic copies of publications or other scholarly products that appeared in the evaluation period
IV. Syllabi for all MUSE (and MUSE cross-listed) courses taught
V. Student evaluations of teaching for all MUSE (and MUSE cross-listed) courses taught
VI. Any peer evaluations of teaching from the previous year (to be done at least every three years)
Faculty need not submit proof of service, although the PEC may request such proof at its discretion.
3. Feedback Process
The PEC is responsible for assessing the annual evaluations and determining scores for each faculty member based in part on the faculty member’s own evaluation of their performance in the prior year. That is, each faculty member, using the self-evaluation forms, must justify which score they believe they deserve. It is the task of the PEC to evaluate whether the faculty have been accurate in their assessment and can adjust the score up or down. The PEC submits the scores and brief explanations of them to the Director.
When the evaluations are completed, the Director will write a letter to each faculty member, conveying the scores calculated by the PEC and addressing the individual’s performance in terms of research, teaching, and service. In most cases, it is expected that the Director will follow the advice of the PEC in scoring, but the Director has the responsibility to apply their own judgment about the appropriateness of the recommended ratings and has the discretion to raise or lower the recommended scores, for instance in a case where the Director has knowledge about a faculty member’s performance to which the PEC was not privy.
The written evaluation may include suggested strategies for improvement, particularly in areas rated “marginal” or “poor.” This letter must also provide the faculty member with an opportunity to discuss the evaluation with the Director. This conference provides an opportunity for the Director and faculty member to: (1) review performance expectations and assignments for the following academic year; (2) discuss required reviews (progress toward tenure (PTTR), promotion and tenure (P&T), and post-tenure reviews); (3) discuss individual goals and their relationship to institutional goals (program, college, university, profession); (4) identify faculty development opportunities supporting these goals; and (5) reassess career goals and identify specific performance issues and strategies for renewal, development, or corrective action as appropriate.
The candidate may respond in writing to any negative evaluation; that response will be included in the candidate’s dossier. All evaluating documentation is maintained by the Director in the faculty member’s personnel file as an on-going record of performance of academic responsibilities.
Should a faculty member disagree with the evaluation and remain unsatisfied with the follow-up meeting with the Director, the faculty member may appeal the decision in writing. At the program level, the faculty member will write a letter to the Director, outlining the disagreement and providing all necessary documentation to present the case for appeal adequately. This letter will become a part of the faculty member’s personnel file. The Director must respond to such an appeal in writing.
4. Outcomes of the Annual Performance Evaluation
The MUSE evaluation process yields multiple outcomes. It acknowledges faculty accomplishments or shortcomings and makes them matters of record. It initiates discussions that influence the planning of both individual career development and unit evolution. It assists in the identification of opportunities for faculty improvement and renewal. It provides annual as well as 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 recognition, formal reallocations of effort, reassignment, or dismissal.
The outcomes of these evaluations are closely linked to personnel decisions such as promotion and tenure, but promotion and tenure are not automatically predicted by the annual faculty evaluations. The evaluations and the discussion between the Director and faculty member not only address yearly performance, but shape long-range planning for promotion to Associate Professor and Professor.
In terms of faculty reassignment, because many of our faculty have joint appointments, any reassignment, as identified in the original Memorandum of Appointment Expectations, must be made in consultation with the chair or director of each relevant unit and the College Dean’s Office. Reallocations of effort, whether initiated by the faculty member or the MUSE Director, also emerge from the annual review process.
One of the outcomes of annual evaluations is to serve as the basis of merit salary decisions, when there is merit pay to be disbursed. When the amount of money available for salary increases is made known, the Director determines the distribution of merit money based on each faculty member’s annual evaluations for the previous three years. If a merit increase pool does not become available within a three-year period, annual evaluation scores will roll over until such time.
To determine merit pay distribution, each faculty member’s numerical ratings in their areas of evaluation will be combined with the respective weights of their FTE in research, teaching, and service in the program to produce a weighted average.
Procedures for developing performance improvement plans.
If the Director ascertains that a faculty member’s performance fails to meet academic responsibilities, as indicated by one “poor” rating or multiple “marginal” ratings in a given year or in consecutive years, the Director 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 continued renewal and development, or for other appropriate interventions. The Director 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 reassignment or dismissal.
Procedures for addressing failure to meet academic responsibilities
If a faculty member has been informed that their performance still fails to meet academic responsibilities, the faculty member may request a review by a faculty committee designated to hear such matters in the College of Liberal Arts and Sciences. The review committee will issue a non-binding recommendation on the appropriateness of this conclusion to the Director. The Director may revise 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 program and shall be available to the faculty member.
The Director shall consult annually with the Executive Dean on the progress of any faculty member who falls 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 Executive Dean may recommend to the Provost that a tenured faculty member be dismissed. In making this determination, the Executive Dean shall consider the nature of the failure to meet academic responsibilities, the reason(s) 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 Executive 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, the report(s) of the review committee(s), the annual written evaluation(s) of the Director 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.
5. Faculty Development Initiatives
One of the most important aspects of faculty development is the mentoring of untenured faculty members. These evaluations help the program communicate the progress of its faculty. They help recognize both the achievements of new faculty as well as areas that may need some work to assist new faculty to excel in all three areas of evaluation. In terms of faculty renewal or improvement, these evaluations can help the MUSE Director intervene early in situations where faculty members have difficulties, such as ineffective teaching or inactive research programs. Through discussion, the Director can communicate the needs of the program as well as offer guidance to assist the faculty member in pursuing their research program or improving their teaching.
New faculty mentoring
To further assist and support new faculty members, the program has a mentoring system that links a new faculty member with a tenured faculty member from core MUSE faculty or, should such faculty be unavailable, a tenured affiliate faculty member. This mentor assists the new faculty member in understanding the mission, requirements, and standards of research, teaching, and service excellence of the program and the University, as well as feedback regarding their career progress toward promotion to associate professor.
Mentoring Oversight: The Director will provide routine oversight of the mentoring program. Grounds for dissolution of the arrangement can include dissatisfaction on the part of either the mentor or mentee, as well as concerns by the Director that the interaction is not productive. Progress in all performance areas—research, teaching, and service—should be monitored on a regular basis. Once a year, in conjunction with the annual performance evaluation, junior faculty members should discuss progress on their research and teaching goals in detail with their mentors.
See the Center for Faculty Development and Mentoring for information about additional faculty development opportunities.
Research Intensive Semester
CLAS offers all junior faculty members in good standing a reduced teaching responsibility at some point during the faculty member’s pre-tenure employment. For details on this policy, see Research Intensive Semester in the College of Liberal Arts & Sciences.
APPENDIX
Appendix A – Annual Report Self-Evaluation Forms
Annual Report Self-Evaluation Form 1: Research Year:
Name: Allocation of Effort: Percent appointment in MUSE:
Please consult the Guidelines for Self-Evaluations and highlight in bold one and only one of the following rankings that you believe best represents your research performance for the calendar year:
Excellent Very Good Good Marginal Poor
Using the remainder of this page and 12-point font, explain your choice with reference to the evaluation categories listed in Appendix B. Attach electronic copies of publications referenced.
Annual Report Self-Evaluation Form 2: Teaching Year:
Name: Allocation of Effort: Percent appointment in MUSE:
Please consult the Guidelines for Self-Evaluations and highlight in bold one and only one of the following rankings that you believe best represents your teaching performance for the calendar year:
Excellent Very Good Good Marginal Poor
Using the remainder of this page and 12-point font, explain your choice with reference to the evaluation categories listed in Appendix B. Attach electronic copies of syllabi, student evaluations (summary form and any comments), and (if applicable) peer reviews of teaching for all courses taught/cross-listed in MUSE.
Annual Report Self-Evaluation Form 3: Service Year:
Name: Allocation of Effort: Percent appointment in MUSE:
Please consult the Guidelines for Self-Evaluations and highlight in bold one and only one of the following rankings that you believe best represents your service performance for the calendar year:
Excellent Very Good Good Marginal Poor
Using the remainder of this page and 12-point font, explain your choice with reference to the evaluation categories listed in Appendix B.
Appendix B - Annaual Report Evaluation Scale
Research Categories
| Excellent (4) |
Ongoing field/archival research, data collection; museum work in progress (archiving, curating, etc.) Plus one of the following:
|
| Very Good (3) |
Ongoing field/archival research, data collection; museum work in progress (archiving, curating, etc.) Plus one of the following:
|
| Good (2) |
Ongoing field/archival research, data collection; museum work in progress (archiving, curating, etc.) Plus one of the following:
|
| Marginal (1) |
Ongoing field/archival research, data collection, museum work in progress (archiving, curating, etc.) Minor publications (blogs posts, encyclopedia enteries, etc.) |
| Poor (0) | No evidence of research activity through confernces, grants, data collection, publications, or museum work in progress |
Note: Book reviews on a single work count not as research but as service; lengthy review articles treating multiple works are counted as research.
Teaching Categories
| Excellent (4) |
Teaches normal load of classes per contract; syllabi demonstrate that course goals are clear; class content is current and appropriate for course; student evaluation ratings are consistently good; evidence of advising commensurate with rank. Evidence of evaluating, revising, or restructuring syllabi.
Plus one of the following:
|
| Very Good (3) |
Teaches normal load of classes per contract; syllabi demonstrate that course goals are clear; class content is current and appropriate for course; student evaluation ratings are consistently good; evidence of advising commensurate with rank.
• Evidence of evaluating, revising, or restructuring syllabi.
Plus one of the following:
|
| Good (2) |
Teaches normal load of classes per contract; syllabi demonstrate that course goals are clear; class content is current and appropriate for course; student evaluation ratings are consistently good; evidence of advising commensurate with rank.
Evidence of evaluating, revising, or restructuring syllabi.
Service as chair or co-chair on one final product committee OR committee member on three final product committees (category may be mixed; service on student committees outside MUSE may be counted; credit given in year that student successfully defends)
|
| Marginal (1) |
Teaches normal load of classes per contract, but learning outcomes are not clear; student evaluations demonstrate consistent patterns of complaint; demonstrates need for improvement. |
| Poor (0) | May teach normal load of classes but syllabi and course goals are unclear; class content is not updated or appropriate for courses; student evaluations consistently rank in the lower half of the scale; unsatisfactory quality/quantity of advising; unsatisfactory peer teaching evaluations. |
Service Categories
| Excellent (4) |
Fulfills normal Program service roles (attends meetings, service on ad hoc committees as needed)
Service on a college or university committee or governance body
Fulfills normal service outside University commensurate with rank, e.g.: reviews manuscripts/proposals/articles/grant applications; publishes book reviews; performs tenure & promotion reviews; significant community engagement; sits on committees/boards in scholarly organizations, etc.
And fulfills one of the following:
|
| Very Good (3) |
Fulfills normal Program service roles (attends meetings, service on ad hoc committees as needed)
Fulfills normal service outside University commensurate with rank, e.g.: reviews manuscripts/proposals/articles/grant applications; publishes book reviews; performs tenure & promotion reviews; significant community engagement; sits on committees/boards in scholarly organizations, etc.
One substantial service commitment in University and one outside University.
|
| Good (2) |
Fulfills normal Program service roles (attends meetings, service on ad hoc committees as needed)
Fulfills normal service outside University commensurate with rank, e.g.: reviews manuscripts/proposals/articles/grant applications; publishes book reviews; performs tenure & promotion reviews; community engagement; sits on committees/boards in scholarly organizations, etc.
One substantial service commitment in University or one outside University.
|
| Marginal (1) |
Marginal or inconsistent fulfillment of normal Program service roles
Little engagement with field via review of articles, manuscripts, book reviews, promotion and tenure files, sitting on committees in scholarly organizations, etc.
No service commitments outside Program
|
| Poor (0) | Does not perform service. |
These requirements are the minimum service requirements to achieve each level. We anticipate that faculty will also perform service in ways that we appreciate but that do not factor directly into these rankings. If faculty believe that a service role outside of what is listed here is equivalent to a role that is recognized in this rubric, they should feel free to demonstrate how that service meets the requirements for any of the levels.
Contact:
Museum Studies Program
University of Kansas
Snow Hall, Room 317
1460 Jayhawk Blvd.
Lawrence, KS 66045
785-864-4543
museumstudies@ku.edu
Approved by:
Museum Studies Executive Committee
Approved on:
Tuesday, June 18, 2024
Effective on:
Tuesday, June 18, 2024
Review Cycle:
Annual (As Needed)
Keywords:
Faculty Evaluation Plan, Museum Studies
Change History:
11/18/2024: Updated Appendices.
06/18/2024: New Policy added to the Policy Library.
School/College Policy Categories:
Additional Policies
