Post-tenure Review Criteria and Procedures, Humanities Program

General Principles: In accordance with Board of Regents requirements (II.C.8), Article 7 Section 4 of the Faculty Senate Rules and Regulations, and the University Policy on Post-tenure Review, the Humanities Program, hereafter referred to as HWC, has adopted these expectations and procedures for conducting post-tenure review. Post-tenure review is a process for periodic peer evaluation of faculty performance that provides an opportunity for a long-term assessment of a faculty member’s accomplishments and future directions in the areas of teaching/advising, scholarship, and service.

Post-tenure review must be conducted in a manner that respects the rights of faculty members involved, including academic freedom, tenure, and due process. In addition, all those involved in the evaluation process must recognize that it is a confidential personnel matter and take appropriate steps to protect confidentiality.

Period for Review:

Faculty members will be reviewed once every seven years following the receipt of tenure with the review occurring in the unit(s) that conducts their annual evaluation. Post-tenure review covers the seven-year period leading up to the review, including the six prior annual evaluation letters and activities since the last annual evaluation. The cycle is restarted if a faculty member is evaluated for promotion or is awarded a distinguished professorship.  The time period when a faculty member is on medical or familial leave or that would otherwise be excluded when computing time in rank does not count toward this period. In addition, time serving as department chair, program director, dean or associate dean, or other administrative position subject to administrative review is excluded. The review may be postponed if it falls in a year when the faculty member is on leave. Faculty members on phased retirement or whose retirement date has been approved by the university will be exempt from review under this policy. The dean of the College will notify faculty members scheduled for post-tenure review no later than March 15^th in the spring semester preceding the academic year of review. 

Unit Expectations: All tenured faculty members must meet academic responsibilities in the areas of teaching/advising, scholarship, and service. Unless otherwise specified by the job description or differential allocation of effort, the ordinary allocation of effort is 40% teaching/advising, 40% scholarship, and 20% service.

The HWC has defined its standards and expectations for teaching/advising, scholarship, and service in its annual evaluation procedures. The expectations for post-tenure review are consistent with these standards, with overall productivity commensurate to the seven-year period under review. The following specific criteria shall apply for purposes of post-tenure review.

Criteria for Meeting Expectations in Teaching/Advising:

Teaching: Each member of the faculty is expected to engage in teaching and advising activities. Full-time faculty members teach two classes per semester. Consistent with the instructional mission of the University, teaching effectiveness is essential in the evaluation of a faculty member. Effective teaching refers to the faculty member’s ability to disseminate knowledge, foster intellectual discovery and growth, and enhance communication skills. As a largely undergraduate, interdisciplinary degree program grounded in the liberal arts and home to a core element of general education at KU, HWC views teaching as central to its mission. Teaching ability can express itself in a variety of approaches and methods, and ranges over everything from lower-level introductory courses, including large lecture classes involving GTA supervision, to specialized courses for majors and independent study for the senior essay.

The effectiveness in teaching may be achieved in many ways, and may be documented by several means, among them:

1. Student evaluations. All HWC instructors are required to administer the University’s “Student Survey of Teaching” at the end of each semester.
2. Peer evaluations. HWC faculty are required to have colleagues regularly evaluate their teaching, including an examination of syllabi and other class materials and classroom visitation, and write an assessment for the file. Pre-tenure faculty and full-time lecturers are evaluated annually.  Tenured faculty members are evaluated bi-annually. Faculty and faculty reviewers should refer to Appendix B for instructions regarding the peer evaluation.
3. Teaching awards and commendations
4. Written appraisals from current and former students, GTAs supervised, and faculty colleagues.
5. Other evidence might include such activities as development of new courses and/or teaching methods.

Advising: Advising, in the broad sense of assisting students regarding a broad range of academic matters and curricular and career choices, is the responsibility of all faculty, and it is assessed as part of the annual faculty evaluations. Faculty generally are expected to be familiar with the appropriate catalogs, timetable, and program requirements; keep scheduled office hours; assist students in making academic and career choices; and refer students to campus support offices when appropriate. To further a community of scholars and students, faculty members are responsible for mentoring students. Mentoring establishes a trust between faculty and students in which confidence-building and the fruitful exchange of ideas can take place. Advising in the narrower sense of assisting HWC majors in selecting their courses during the advising and re-enrollment period each semester is the primary responsibility of the Majors Coordinator assisted by designated HWC faculty.

The effectiveness of faculty members in advising and mentoring is evaluated through informal and formal surveys of students, recent graduates, and peers

Criteria for Meeting Expectations in Research and Creative Activity:

Scholarly Research, Presentation, and Publication: Each member of the faculty is expected to engage in scholarly research. Since Humanities and Western Civilization is not a field of study or discipline but a broad interdisciplinary program, individual faculty may conduct discipline specific or interdisciplinary research or both. In the Humanities and Western Civilization Program, scholarship is defined as contribution to one or more of the disciplines in the humanities and social sciences as measured by, for example, publication of articles in appropriate academic journals, monographs, chapters in books, participation in academic conferences, substantial book reviews, editorship of journals, citation by other scholars, and academic awards.

Although rate of publication varies widely among the disciplines of the humanities and social sciences, within a six-year period an HWC faculty member may normally be expected to have a monograph under contract or in press with an academic publisher of the equivalent in shorter works (e.g., articles, book chapters, editorship of books or special journal issues) in print, under review, or accepted for publication. No absolute or rigid set of criteria can measure scholarly activity and excellence, but it may be documented in several ways, among them:

1. Publications. Ordinarily, faculty members are expected to publish in order to engage in scholarly discourse. Publication includes articles, books, and book chapters as well as curated exhibits, catalogues, electronically disseminated work, and films, or other forms of creative work. One evaluative measure is the acceptance of a published work by peers, which may be documented by:

• Refereed books and journal articles authored or co-authored;
• Editorship of books and special journal issues;
• Invited articles in journals and chapters in books;
• Documented creative activities in the arts (e.g., play direction, painting and sculpture, architectural design). Critical appraisal of such activities is important;
• Review essays, book reviews, and encyclopedia articles;
• Published reviews of a faculty member’s scholarly and creative work;
• Citations in other scholars’ work;
• Reprinting of articles or excerpts in anthologies; and
• Awards and other forms of recognition for scholarly achievement.

2. Papers presented at meetings. Papers accepted for professional meetings are important evidence of scholarly research, frequently providing an opportunity to submit for peer discussion research that will later be published.

3. Research applications and funding both internal and external.

4. Report of work in progress, accompanied if possible by documentation.

Criteria for Meeting Expectations in Service:

Service: As an integral part of the University’s mission, service is important in a faculty member’s evaluation. Service can be provided to the program, College, University, professions, and community. It can be expressed through local state, national and international venues.

Appointment or election to and active service on committees and in offices at the program, College, and University levels.

1. Administrative work in the HWC program (including Study Abroad), College, or University.
2. Activity in the profession, such as review of manuscripts for journals and academic publishers, journal editorships, editorial board memberships, and holding office in or being involved in program planning for professional organizations.
3. Service to the local community, the state, the region, the nation, or the international community.

Relation to the Annual Evaluation. The HWC post-tenure review is conducted separately from the annual evaluation, but the post-tenure review file is incorporated into the documentation for the annual evaluation.

The committee report will be considered as part of the annual evaluation process and the director will discuss the review with the faculty member in conjunction with that process. This discussion should concentrate on the future professional development of the faculty member with an aim toward enhancing meritorious work and improving less satisfactory performance, including adoption of a performance improvement plan, if necessary. Any action on the review that is within the scope of the Faculty Evaluation Policy must be taken under that policy.

Joint Appointments. The faculty member will provide both units with copies of the Faculty Member’s Statement section of the Post-Tenure Review File (reflecting the representative effort in each unit) and a current curriculum vitae. The review goes forward with each unit preparing a separate committee evaluation summary and considerations by each chair and/or director to the dean. Each unit will submit their review materials directly to the College Dean’s Office. In the case of a jointly appointed faculty and unclassified academic staff member outside of the College, the primary unit is responsible for the administrative protocols of engaging the secondary unit in the solicitation and collection of feedback relative to the evaluation of performance expectations in the secondary unit.

Review Committee: Post-tenure review is conducted by the Post-tenure Review Committee, which shall consist of three tenured faculty members. Should there be fewer than three tenured faculty members in HWC, the director shall consult with the person or persons being reviewed and with the Associate Dean for the Humanities in the College to select a tenured faculty member from another Humanities department to serve on the Committee.

No person may serve on the committee if his or her spouse or partner is scheduled for review. If the chair/director is the spouse or partner of the faculty member under review, the “Chair or Director Evaluation Summary” shall be conducted by the Divisional Associate Dean. A committee member who believes that there may be a conflict of interest should withdraw from the committee. If a faculty member who is undergoing review believes that there is a conflict of interest, he or she may object to the inclusion of a member. If the member declines to withdraw, the remaining committee members shall consider the basis for the alleged conflict and decide the matter. If a committee member withdraws or is removed based on a conflict of interest, the director will consult with the Associate Dean for the Humanities in the College to select a replacement.

Preparation of the File: Review will be conducted on the basis of a file that summarizes a faculty member’s teaching/advising, scholarship, and service. In contrast to evaluation for promotion and tenure, copies of publications and original student evaluations are not required. Also, outside reviews of scholarship should not be submitted.

Using the Faculty Member Statement, the faculty member under review shall provide a brief narrative statement of his or her accomplishments in teaching/advising, scholarship, and service during the review period as they relate to his or her long-term career path and goals. In addition, the faculty member shall submit a current curriculum vitae and a list of additional activities not covered on the curriculum vitae. The director will furnish copies of the faculty member’s annual evaluation letters for the six years during the review period.

Evaluation and Report: The committee will review the file and evaluate the faculty member’s overall performance and his or her contributions in the areas of teaching, scholarship, and service. Applying the expectations defined above, the committee will determine whether the faculty member’s performance in each area, as well as whether his or her overall performance meets expectations, exceeds expectations, or fails to meet expectations. In making its evaluations, the committee must bear in mind that (1) faculty members have differing responsibilities and make different kinds of contributions to the mission of the HWC, the College, and the University; (2) a faculty member’s activities vary over time according to his or her strengths, interests, and career path; and (3) innovative work may take time to reach fruition and may sometimes fail.

Using the Unit Committee Report, the committee will prepare a written report summarizing its evaluation. The report should provide a narrative description of the faculty member’s activities, an explanation of the committee’s ratings, and recommendations or suggestions for acknowledgement of contributions and future development of the faculty member. The committee will provide a copy of the 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 director.

Consideration by the Chair/Director: The committee’s report (along with any faculty response) will be provided to the director. Using the Chair/Director Evaluation Summary, if the director 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 or director 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. The director may ask the committee to provide additional information or reconsider the review. If the director disagrees with a positive evaluation by the committee, the faculty member may submit a written response. The director will forward the file to the dean of the College. Post-tenure review files are due in the College Dean’s Office by no later than noon, on the second Friday of March.

Consideration by the Dean: The faculty member’s post-tenure review file, including the unit committee’s report (along with any faculty response) and the director’s agreement or disagreement, is forwarded to the dean. Post-tenure review files are due in the College Dean’s Office by no later than noon, on the second Friday in March. The dean will consider the report and using the Dean’s Evaluation Summary, express his or her agreement or disagreement in the same manner as the director. Following the completion of review by the dean, if the dean agrees with the report, he or she will indicate that agreement in writing to the faculty member and place a copy in the file. If dean 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 unit committee. The dean may ask the committee to provide additional information or reconsider the review. If the dean disagrees with a positive evaluation by the unit committee, the faculty member may submit a written response. The dean will forward a summary of post-tenure review outcomes and copies of the post-tenure review files to the Provost, to ultimately be placed in the faculty member’s personnel file.

Appeals: Following the completion of the review by the dean, if a disagreement between the committee and the director or dean cannot be resolved or if the faculty member wishes to appeal an evaluation of “fails to meet expectations” in the overall evaluation or any category of responsibility, the matter will be handled as an appeal under the HWC annual Faculty Evaluation Policy.

Report to the Provost: The dean will provide a summary of the results in the College and copies of the post-tenure review file to the Provost. The post-tenure review file will be placed in the faculty member’s personnel file.