Post-tenure Review Criteria and Procedures, Department of Communication Studies

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 Communication Studies, hereafter referred to as the Department, 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 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: Effective teaching refers to the faculty member’s dissemination of knowledge to enhance students’ skills, create understanding, and foster intellectual growth. Teaching will be judged based on the entire teaching portfolio of the faculty member in relation to departmental norms relating to the level of coursework and the type of course taught. Teaching excellence may be achieved in many ways including traditional classroom instruction and one on one teaching or coaching, and may be documented by several means, including the following.

1. Student perceptions, with special emphasis on perceived strengths and weaknesses. Systematic student evaluations must be provided for each course taught by the candidate.

2. Perceptions of advisees, recent alumni, peer reviews.

3. Teaching awards and commendations.

4. Service on M.A. and Ph.D. comprehensive examinations and advisory committees, and quality advising and mentoring of graduate students.

5. Reported advising activities.

Criteria for Meeting Expectations in Research and Creative Activity: The expectation of the department is that the faculty member will publish written work in appropriate books and journals. Published works are those that have appeared in a journal or a book that has been released. In press refers to work that has been written and accepted with no substantial revisions pending; a letter from the editor is needed to show that a work is in-press.

1. Publications must be sufficient in both quantity and quality. Criteria for evaluating publications include the following:

a. Books and Refereed articles. Evidence of a developed, important research program in the form of academic books and/or peer-reviewed journal articles is needed. Anonymous peer review, as a condition for publication, shall be regarded as a sign of acceptance by colleagues in the faculty member’s discipline when contribution to scholarship is the purpose of the journal and the criterion of the refereeing. Scholarly books and monographs will be considered important evidence of research capability.

b. Invited articles in significant journals also can be important scholarly contributions. When the importance of an invited contribution is not established by the reputation of the editor who invites it or the publication in which it appears, other indices of peer acceptance may be cited.

c. The quality of publications may be evaluated by colleagues outside the Department.

d. The reputation of the journal(s) in which the faculty member publishes will be taken into account by Committee members in making their judgments. Publication in a prestigious journal is evidence of peer acceptability of the faculty’s work.

e. Published reviews of a faculty member’s book can be evidence of the importance of its contribution.

f. Acceptance of a faculty member’s work may be measured to some extent by the frequency his or her work is cited by colleagues. Sometimes evaluations accompanying citation provide qualitative evidence of the impact of an article, book, or a research agenda developed by the candidate. The reprinting of articles or excerpts in anthologies is a related form of acknowledgment.

g. Papers given at meetings. It is expected that faculty members will present papers at meetings of scholarly associations. Generally, unpublished papers will not be accorded the weight of published papers.

2. Research funding. The receipt of a research grant, especially from a funding source outside the University, is evidence that the faculty member’s scholarly abilities are acceptable to colleagues who have reviewed grant applications. Receipt of outside support for research is highly commendable.

3. Record: The portfolio must 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 faculty member’s work by eminent scholars or practitioners in the field, the faculty member’s national or international reputation, and other evidence of an active and productive scholarly career. The following variables are also taken into consideration when evaluating research:&

a. Evidence of a developed, important research program in the form of academic books and/or peer-reviewed journal articles. The research must be sufficient both in terms of quantity and quality.

b. The favorable response of peers to the individual’s work as evidenced by 1) letters of recommendation, 2) awards, 3) reviews, 4) letters of commendation.

c. Evidence that published expertise in a particular area has led to such professional activities as: guest lecturers; consultantships; post-doctoral fellowships; requests to contribute to professional meetings, symposia, and scholarly collections, and national and international recognition and honors.

d. The reprinting of portions of books and articles in the works of peers.

Criteria for Meeting Expectations in Service: Service can be provided to the department, College, University, community, and discipline. It can be expressed through local, state, national, and international avenues. A faculty member must be able to document his/her activities in public and professional service. Such documentation can be provided by indicating the specific types of activities including:

1. Membership and effective participation on departmental committees;

2. Membership and effective participation on College or University committees;

3. Election to and effective work in offices at the College or University level;

4. Consultation activity at the local, state, national, and international levels;

5. Effective work in the community in relation to the mission of the department;

6. Effective participation in positions with regional, national and international professional societies;

7. Journal editorships and editorial board memberships; and,

8. Effective administrative work in department, College or University offices.

Relation to the Annual Evaluation. Post-tenure reviews will be conducted by the Advisory Committee of the Department of Communication Studies in conjunction with the Department’s annual faculty evaluations such that the post-tenure review and annual evaluation are combined into a single process. The committee report will be considered as part of the annual evaluation process and the Department 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: The post-tenure review shall be conducted by the Department of Communication Studies Advisory committee, which shall be selected as provided in the Department of Communication bylaws. 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 Department 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. 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 Department 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, 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 Department Chair.

Consideration by the Chair/Director: The committee’s report (along with any faculty response) will be provided to the Department Chair. Using the Chair/Director Evaluation Summary, if the Department 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 Department Chair may ask the committee to provide additional information or reconsider the review. If the Department Chair disagrees with a positive evaluation by the committee, the faculty member may submit a written response. The Department Chair will forward the file to the dean of the College.

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 Department 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 his or her agreement or disagreement in the same manner as the Department 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 Department 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 Communication Study’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.