Post-tenure Review Criteria and Procedures, Department of History of Art

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 History of Art Department, 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 Unit 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:

The History of Art Department expects faculty members to engage actively and effectively in teaching, advising, research and service within the University and, where appropriate, regionally, nationally and internationally. Ideally, faculty should strive to maintain in these endeavors an overall level of excellence.

Teaching

History of Art faculty members normally teach at the undergraduate and graduate levels the equivalent of 40% of their departmental appointment In the History of Art Department. Effective teaching involves dissemination of knowledge to students; the enhancement of students' intellectual growth; and, where appropriate, the mentoring of students. To achieve this, the teacher must know their field thoroughly, keep abreast of recent developments therein, and conduct their own research.

The successful teacher arouses the students' interest by demonstrating enthusiasm for the subject, and takes responsibility for trying to motivate their students. Motivation is expected to take positive forms; punitive measures are not to be used, and students must never be insulted, humiliated, or harassed. An important component of motivation is timely and substantial feedback to students in the form of quiz and test grades and constructive comments on written work. Faculty members are also expected to be regularly available for consultation outside of class hours.

The teacher leads students to think critically and to apply their knowledge, and is receptive to new ideas. When graduate teaching assistants are assigned to a teacher's class, the teacher closely supervises them.

More specific expectations are as follows:

1. Course load

Each full-time faculty member will normally teach four courses each academic year Those with less than full-time appointments in the History of Art Department - e.g., those with joint appointments - will normally teach a course load based on their fractional appointment within the HA Department. Distinguished professors also normally have a reduced course load.

In determining the semester distribution of History of Art course offerings, the department's chair will make every effort to accommodate individual faculty preferences; but in the case of unsolvable conflicts, although the chair will give some weight to seniority, ultimately decisions will be made on the basis of the overall best interests of the department.

2. Thesis and dissertation direction

History of Art faculty members are expected to accede to reasonable requests by students to supervise their Honors and Master's theses. Criteria for determining the reasonability of such requests are the match between the student's interests and the faculty member's field of expertise and the faculty member's evaluation of the likelihood of the student's successful completion of the project. Having accepted responsibility for advising a Master's or Honors thesis, the faculty member is expected to provide appropriate feedback to the student in a timely fashion.

Graduate faculty in the History of Art Department may also be called upon to supervise advanced students in the preparation of their post-MA curriculum and eventual doctoral dissertation. Supervision of doctoral dissertations follows the same general guidelines for MA theses. However, given the longer and closer association of the professor and student over the course of the dissertation's preparation, the match of interests and the advisor's evaluation of a candidate's prospects assume even greater importance.

B. Advising

Academic advising is a vital part of the teaching responsibilities of all faculty members. Academic advisors should show a genuine concern for students and be accurately informed about departmental and college curricular requirements. Effective advising also includes being available to students and assisting them in planning their academic or professional careers. At the graduate level effective advising also involves individual mentoring.

Criteria for Meeting Expectations in Research and Creative Activity:

All History of Art faculty are expected to remain active in research and to keep abreast of current developments in their field. Research activity normally should occupy 40% of a faculty member's appointment in the department. Research is defined as the continuing endeavor to contribute to the extension of the frontiers of knowledge, which is one of the functions of the university. An effective research program includes engaging in discourse in art history and affiliated disciplines through the presentation of papers at seminars, meetings and other public forums; the publication of refereed scholarship, such as articles, books and exhibition catalogues; the organization and presentation of exhibitions, and related curatorial endeavors; editorial work; and the publication of reviews or commentaries on the profession.

Criteria for Meeting Expectations in Service:

Service represents both participation in the self-governing collegial structure of the University and contributions to our institution, profession and society. Normally, a faculty member's service is weighted 20% of his/her departmental appointment. All History of Art faculty are expected to contribute to the successful functioning of the department, College, and University, through service on committees and/or formal administrative duties. Faculty at the assistant professor rank are expected to participate in one or two substantial service areas each year in order to be considered for promotion; associate and full professors are expected to make more substantial contributions in this area. Service to the community at large whether in the city, state, or region, nationally or even internationally is also a valuable component of service. Documentation of service activities is provided by the individual faculty members.

Defining Levels of Performance Expectations:

The criteria for post-tenure review shall provide for the evaluation of teaching, scholarship, and service as either “exceeds expectations,” “meets expectations” or “fails to meet expectations.” The faculty annual-review evaluations correspond to the PTR evaluations in the following ways: “exceeds expectations” is comparable to "excellent” or “very good"; “meets expectations” is comparable to "good”; and “fails to meet expectations” is comparable to “marginal" or "poor.”

(a) "Excellent" means that the faculty member substantially exceeds disciplinary and department/unit expectations for the relevant rank.

(b) "Very Good" means the faculty member exceeds disciplinary and department/unit expectations for the relevant rank.

(c) "Good" means the faculty member meets disciplinary and department/unit expectations for the relevant rank.

(d) "Marginal" means the faculty member falls below disciplinary and department/unit expectations for the relevant rank.

(e) "Poor" means the faculty member falls significantly below disciplinary and department/unit expectations for the relevant rank.

Relation to the Annual Evaluation. The History of Art Department’s faculty evaluation committee conducts post-tenure review pursuant to the department’s Faculty Evaluation Policy and in accordance with College policies, separately from and in addition to the usual annual review. A faculty member undergoing post-tenure review submits two distinct sets of documents to the faculty evaluation committee at the same time (per the standard January 24 deadline): 1) their post-tenure review Faculty Member Statement and curriculum vitae; and 2) their annual report for the previous year. The faculty evaluation committee produces the post-tenure review Unit Committee Report and delivers it to the department chair. The department chair produces the post-tenure review Chair/Director Evaluation Summary, and delivers it to the faculty member undergoing post-tenure review. The chair also delivers to that faculty member a letter evaluating the faculty member’s performance during the past year. 

The chair will discuss the post-tenure review Unit Committee Report and Chair/Director Evaluation Summary with the faculty member. 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: The History of Art post-tenure review is conducted by the Faculty Evaluation Committee, which shall be selected as provided in the Faculty Evaluation Plan.

No person may serve on the committee if their 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, that faculty member 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.

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. Forms for this process can be downloaded from the website of the College Dean’s Office.

Using the Faculty Member Statement, the faculty member under review shall provide a brief narrative statement of their accomplishments in teaching/advising, scholarship, and service during the review period as they relate to the faculty member's 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 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 their 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 their 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 History of Art Department, the College, and the University; (2) a faculty member’s activities vary over time according to their 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, the chair 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, the chair 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, express their 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, the dean 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, the dean 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 History of Art Department’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.