Post-tenure Review Criteria and Procedures, Department of Anthropology

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 Department of Anthropology, hereafter referred to as the Unit, 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 Department of Anthropology 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.

Each faculty will be assigned the weight of 40:40:20 to the responsibilities of teaching/advising, research, and service respectively for the evaluation; the exception would be those faculty who have a DAE that has been negotiated and agreed upon by the faculty member and chair. If a faculty member has an official “allocation of effort” that is different than the normal 40:40:20, these different percentages will be used to evaluate the faculty member’s contributions to the university and to later recommendation for the awarding of any merit.

Each faculty member is evaluated on the basis of an account of activities in teaching/advising, research, and service supplied by that faculty member.

Criteria for Meeting Expectations in Teaching/Advising:

Teaching. Teaching is a primary function of the university, which strives to provide an outstanding education for its students. The evaluation of teaching includes consideration of syllabi, course materials, and other information related to a faculty member’s courses; peer and student evaluations; a candidate’s own statement of teaching philosophy and goals; and other accepted methods of evaluation.

Specifically, does the teaching reflect knowledge of his/her field and the recent developments therein; is the faculty member effective in encouraging students' interest, helping them to think critically and apply their knowledge, pointing them toward the broader implications of their study, and generally encouraging their development as perceptive readers and articulate speakers and writers. The record must also give indication of responsible fulfillment of all duties associated with teaching. Continued effectiveness and growth as a teacher, as reflected in such factors as mastery of the subject matter, strong classroom teaching skills, an ongoing commitment to student learning are further examples for meeting teaching/advising expectations.

Criteria for Meeting Expectations in Research and Creative Activity: Research. Research performance is assessed in the following three areas: (1) Published books, chapters and articles, edited media compilations (audio and video), research reports, exhibits, peer-reviewed World Wide Web publications, annotated databases, special lectures or colloquia, papers presented at professional meetings, presentations to local or regional audiences. (2) Research in progress: fieldwork; grant, contract, or fellowship applications submitted; awards received; manuscripts in progress. (3) Contribution of research to the university, profession, and larger community: financial support for students, stimulation of areas of research, invited lectures, press coverage, consulting in areas of research expertise, and integration of research with teaching, are among the ways research contribution is determined. Specifically, does the record demonstrate an established scholarly career, as reflected in such factors as a substantial and ongoing pattern of publication or creative activity, external reviews of the candidate’s work by eminent scholars or practitioners in the field, the candidate’s national or international reputation, and other evidence of an active and productive scholarly career.

Criteria for Meeting Expectations in Service: Service. Departmental service is required of all faculty members, including, but not limited to, participation on department committees as well as attendance at faculty and department meetings. Service to the University; College; profession; local, national, and/or international communities is expected. Especially important in evaluating faculty service are the following: (1) University service, including participation on departmental, College, professional, or University committees. (2) Professional service outside the University, including participation in local community, state, regional, national, and international activities. Professional service encompasses activities such as reviewing articles for journals or grant applications for funding agencies; editing; and serving as an officer in a professional society. (3) Service outside the academy is also recognized. Specifically, does the record demonstrate an ongoing pattern of service reflecting substantial contributions to the University at one or more levels, to the discipline or profession, and/or to the local, state, national, or international communities.

Relation to the Annual Evaluation. A unit’s post-tenure review policy relates to the Faculty Evaluation Policy and annual evaluations in the following manner. The Department of Anthropology’s Post-Tenure Reviews will be conducted by the Faculty Evaluation Committee. The annual Faculty Evaluation and the Post-Tenure Review are combined into a single process within the Department of Anthropology. As only tenured faculty can serve on the PTR committee, adjustments to the FEC will be made as needed. The committee report will be considered as part of the annual evaluation process and the chair 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 selected in accordance with the unit’s by-laws. The post-tenure review is conducted by the Faculty Evaluation Committee which is selected as indicated in the Department of Anthropology policies and procedures. 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 chair will name a replacement. Other conflicts of interest will be addressed by the committee in consultation with the chair.

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 current curriculum vitae and 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. The chair 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 Department of Anthropology, 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 chair.

Consideration by the Chair/Director: The committee’s report (along with any faculty response) will be provided to the chair. Using the Chair/Director Evaluation Summary, 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 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 chair may ask the committee to provide additional information or reconsider the review. If the chair disagrees with a positive evaluation by the committee, the faculty member may submit a written response. The chair 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 chair’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, and express his or her agreement or disagreement in the same manner as the chair. 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 chair 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 Department of Anthropology’s 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.