Post-tenure Review Criteria and Procedures, Department of Visual Art
To articulate the criteria and procedures for post-tenure review for the Department of Visual Art.
Tenured faculty within the Department of Visual 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 Department of Visual Art, hereafter referred to as the Unit, has adopted these expectations and procedures for conducting post-tenure review. Post-tenure review (PTR) 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 15th 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 Visual Art 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. In making its evaluations in teaching/advising research and service, the PTR committee must bear in mind that (1) faculty members have differing responsibilities and make different kinds of contributions to the mission of the unit 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. Units may also request that additional procedural or other specifications be added to the file to help address the above. The following specific criteria shall apply for purposes of post-tenure review.
Criteria for Meeting Expectations in Teaching/Advising:
The conduct of classes is the central feature of teaching responsibilities at KU and in the Department of Visual Art, but teaching also includes supervising student research and clinical activities, mentoring and advising students, and other teaching-related activities outside of the classroom. High quality teaching is serious intellectual work grounded in a deep knowledge and understanding of the field and includes the ability to convey that understanding in clear and engaging ways. Normal teaching responsibilities for a full-time faculty member on permanent appointment normally represent a 40% load that includes two courses per semester, working with undergraduate and/or graduate independent appointment students, advising undergraduate and/or graduate students; serving on and/or chairing Master of Fine Art thesis committees, Master of Art thesis projects, Master of Art exams; and participating in the annual graduate student reviews and graduate seminar when so assigned. Quality of both undergraduate and graduate teaching is essential to the mission of the Department of Visual Art; neither can be judged more important than the other.
A faculty member's performance as a teacher cannot be evaluated by any single formula, nor can it be easily quantified. As a consequence, any evaluation of teaching should be based on many factors. Factors considered in developing an overall evaluation of teaching performance include, but are not limited to (in alphabetical order):  advising and student mentoring;  development of new courses; updating courses; new and innovative approaches; course coordination (multiple sections);  engagement with independent study and/or graduate students;  outreach (e.g., off-campus, Internet, and correspondence courses);  peer reviews;  serving on graduate committees;  teaching awards, fellowships and grants; and  the University’s approved “Student Survey of Teaching” form and accompanying comments sheet.
Under the University standards, for associate professors to meet expectations, the record must demonstrate effective and successful teaching as reflected in such factors as command of the subject matter, the ability to communicate effectively in the classroom, a demonstrated strong commitment to student learning, and involvement in providing advice and support for students outside the classroom. Based on these specifics the department expectations for associate professors are to show evidence of a serious and ongoing commitment to the wide-ranging teaching mission of the department, evidence of the development of successful teaching strategies and outcomes, involvement in providing advice and support for students outside the classroom, and strong indications of future development towards the eventual goal of excellence in teaching.
For those at the rank of professor, meeting expectations means that the record demonstrates 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, and active involvement in providing advice and support for students outside the classroom. A professor’s record should indicate a continued commitment, effectiveness and growth to the wide-ranging teaching mission of the department with evidence of fully engaged and highly skilled pedagogical strategies.
Criteria for Meeting Expectations in Research and Creative Activity:
Scholarship may include any of a wide variety of activities related to the fields within the Department of Visual Art and the interests of the faculty member. It is expected that each faculty member will pursue creative research and/or related professional activities to achieve regional, national and/or international recognition among his or her peers. Broad judgment must be exercised in the evaluation of creative activity because faculty research reflects a variety of discourses and the constantly shifting ground of aesthetic judgment.
Productive and consistent engagement in studio work is the fundamental activity that characterizes studio based creative research. Mastery of skills and mastery of materials and techniques are essential. Each artist’s work is also expected to reflect a conceptual awareness relevant to traditional and/or contemporary practices. A list of exhibitions and/or other public outcomes of studio production and related activities is the historic and ongoing reflection of an artist’s dissemination of their studio practice.
Exhibitions may be individual (solo) or group, competitive, invitational, or assembled by a curator. Appropriate spaces for exhibition, are dependent on the type of research that each individual is engaged in. They include, but are not limited to: museums, galleries (university and other non-profit as well as reputable for-profit venues), film screenings, festivals, alternative exhibition spaces (often essential for presentation of atypical, non-traditional and/or experimental creative research), and adjudicated online venues and publications. Community-based art productions and public art projects may occur in public venues particular to the project. The department recognizes that creative practice can be individually developed, collaboratively developed or community driven. In cases that involve collaboration and/or community, the role(s) of the individual must be clearly articulated for the purposes of evaluation.
Criteria that are considered in the determination of quality and importance of creative practice include information mentioned above, and also incorporate the quality and reputation of the particular venues, amount of exposure for the work, the process of selection and/or source of funding for an event. It is recognized that certain activities and resulting outcomes have different prospects for exposure. These include, but are not limited to: various impediments for shipping certain artworks (size, weight, fragility), limited exposure due to the controversial nature of certain work, and/or because work might be site specific, time based, or temporal in nature.
Other activities that are important aspects of the practice and that represent significant contributions to overall scholarship are: writing about art, curating and/or adjudicating exhibitions, participation in artist residencies, the receipt of grants and awards, critical reviews, manuscript and journal reviewing and editing, participation on panels at professional meetings or similar settings, monographs, exhibition catalogs, art books and major bibliographies, as well as public, corporate and important private acquisitions and or commissions. Multi-year research is recognized as a normal part of productivity. Time spent in innovative experimentation that might not result in immediate public outcomes is also recognized as an acceptable aspect of the practice.
It is important to note that the evaluation of research is different at different career levels. Based on these specifics the department expects associate professors who meet expectations to show a successfully developing record of studio-based and/or other research and a record of public activities on a regional and national level. In order to meet expectations, a professor’s level of creative research and related activities should be elevated to include a sustained level of success in well regarded national and/or international public venues appropriate to their particular practice.
Research that represents a primarily text based scholarly track is considered equally important practice. In evaluation of scholarly research within the department, primary consideration is placed on the quality and extension of knowledge through publication and presentation. Scholarly activities includes, but is not limited to, the following: publication of original research, commentary, and review of peer scholarship in authored and co-authored books, scholarly journals, edited books, monographs, research reports; presentation of research at professional meetings; editing books and scholarly journals; consulting; and earning grants, awards, and/or fellowships from external sources. The quality of these activities is primarily determined by the prestige of the publisher, publication, professional meeting, or organization. Peer reviewed journals are more highly regarded than journals that are not refereed by an editorial board or do not involve peer reviews. Publications with audiences that are international or national are more highly regarded than publications with regional or local readership. Based on these specifics the department expects associate professors that meet expectations to show a successfully developing record of research and presentations at regional and national levels. In order to meet expectations, a professor’s level of research and its dissemination should be at a sustained level of success in well regarded national and/or international public venues appropriate to their research areas. Multi-year research is recognized as a normal part of productivity.
Criteria for Meeting Expectations in Service:
Departmental service, as assigned by the department chair, is required of all faculty members including attendance at faculty and department meetings as well as participation on department committees. Service to the School of the Arts, College, University, and the profession is also important in evaluating faculty service. Professional service outside of the University that is related to the mission of the department or University includes, but is not limited to, participation in community, state, regional, national, and international activities. Participation can encompass activities such as review of external grants and/or promotion & tenure files, serving as an officer in a professional society and board membership. Under the University standards an associate professor’s record should demonstrate a pattern of appropriate contributions of service to the University at one or more levels, to the discipline or profession, and/or to the local, state, national, or international communities. Service contributions should be measured in context with the candidate’s development in the teaching and research arenas. Under the University standards, a professor should have an ongoing and elevated commitment to service related activities within the department, the various levels of the university community as well as service directly related to the candidate’s professional area’s mission at a local, regional, national and/or international level.
Ratings for Performance:
Using the criteria described above, the candidate’s performance in the areas of teaching, scholarship and/or creative research, and service will be rated using the terms “exceeds expectations” “meets expectations,” “fails to meet expectations”
- “exceeds expectations” means that the candidate exceeds expectations in teaching/advising, scholarship and/or creative research and service for his/her rank.
- “meets expectations” means the candidate meets expectations in teaching/advising, scholarship and/or creative research, and service for his/her rank.
- “fails to meet expectations” means the candidate falls below expectations in teaching/advising, scholarship and/or creative research, and service for his/her rank.
Relation to the Annual Evaluation: The post-tenure review process will provide the basis for the FEC committee to conduct the annual evaluation in the year that the PTR is also conducted. During the post-tenure review year, the post-tenure review materials will be included as the documentation for the annual performance evaluation (APE). For the purpose of the APE, if the faculty member chooses, they may submit additional materials beyond what was submitted for the PTR to the FEC. 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, ranked at or above the person being reviewed, selected in accordance with the unit’s by-laws.
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.
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, a complete service resume, and a list of any additional related 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, to the committee.
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 Visual Art 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.
The committee will prepare a written report summarizing its evaluation (see attached form: Unit Committee Report). 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. 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 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 Visual Art’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.
University of Kansas
Department of Visual Art
10/11/2021: Removed broken links.
10/12/2015: Per the Interim Dean of the College of Liberal Arts & Sciences, the following was added to the template under Committee 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. Also added Dean’s review/acceptance under “Rank/Status/Change/History.”
08/28/2015: Added new template language to “Period for Review.”
08/18/2015: Updated links to CLAS PtR Forms
04/24/2015: Updated CLAS Ptr Forms and added links to each form within the policy statement
04/02/2015: Fixed broken link to Board of Regents Policy Manual.
02/18/2015: Updated joint appointment section to include new boilerplate language.
12/18/2014: Updated to provide the current link to the Board of Regents Policy Manual.
11/21/2014: Updated to provide the current link to the Board of Regents Policy Manual.
06/03/2014: Reviewed and accepted by the College of Liberal Arts & Sciences Dean’s Office.
05/02/2014: Approved by vote of the Department of Visual Art faculty.