Post-tenure Review Criteria and Procedures, Department of History

I. 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 History, hereafter referred to as the History Department or 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.

II. Period for Review

Post-tenure Review is conducted on a seven-year cycle and covers the seven-year period leading up to the review. It covers and is based on: the six prior annual evaluation letters from the Chair to the faculty member; the faculty member’s activities since the last annual evaluation; and documentation of any appeals by the faculty member. The cycle is restarted if a faculty member is evaluated for promotion or is awarded a distinguished professorship. Some years may be excluded from the cycle in accordance with the University policy, and the review may be postponed if the faculty member is on leave during the year of review. The Chair of the History Department shall notify faculty members it has scheduled for post-tenure review no later than March 15th in the
spring semester preceding the academic year of review.

III. 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% research, 40% teaching/advising, and 20% service. Post-tenure review criteria shall be consistent with criteria for annual evaluation listed in the department’s Faculty Evaluation Plan (FEP), which are part of the department’s bylaws. If the department revises its FEP, its post-tenure criteria will incorporate those revisions. 

The Department of History has defined its standards and expectations for research, teaching/advising, and service in its annual evaluation procedures. The expectations for posttenure review are consistent with these standards, with overall productivity commensurate to the seven-year period under review.

A. Criteria for Meeting Expectations in Research

Tenure is granted to faculty members with the expectation that they will continue to be active scholars. The record must demonstrate an established scholarly career, as reflected in such factors as a substantial and ongoing pattern of research and publication and other evidence of an active and productive scholarly career.

"Scholarship" in the History Department includes the following activities, which have varying degrees of importance:

1. Publication of a book (monograph, edited text, research-based textbook, or edited collection, whether in print or online);
2. Publication of articles in peer-reviewed or refereed journals or invited collections;
3. Presentations at scholarly conferences and invited presentations, including keynote speeches or invitations to present, leading toward publication;
4. Manuscripts submitted for publication; research that is completed and ready for publication.
5. Professional honors and awards; journal editorships.

B. Criteria for Meeting Expectations in Teaching/Advising

The faculty member’s record must demonstrate 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. The candidate’s teaching should reflect knowledge of their field, and show that they are effective in encouraging students’ interest, helping them to think critically and to apply their knowledge, pointing them toward the broader implications of their study, and generally encouraging their development as perceptive readers and articulate writers.  The record must also give indication of responsible fulfillment of all duties associated with teaching, including timely holding of class sessions, efficient administration of on-line content, making themselves regularly available for consultation in-person and electronically, grading and commenting on assignments in a timely and sufficient manner, upholding fair expectations and criteria for student work (as judged by standards in the discipline), adequately preparing for class and making effective use of class time, reflecting about pedagogy, maintaining mastery of class subject matter, and actively engaging in advising students.

C. Criteria for Meeting Expectations in Service

The record should indicate significant participation in activities necessary to the successful functioning of the department, College, and/or University, including significant service on committees and participation at departmental meetings. In addition, a record of substantial contributions to the larger university community, the profession, or the discipline at the local, regional, national, or international level (e.g. memberships on committees or task forces, memberships of editorial or advisory boards, student recruitment, administration, reviewing grant  applications, judging academic awards competitions, offices in professional organizations, conducting ad hoc workshops, fund raising, organizing conferences or lectures, etc.) is expected. A record demonstrating leadership at the department, College, University, or professional level indicates meritorious service beyond minimum expectations.

IV. Relation to the Annual Evaluation

The Post-tenure Review shall be conducted by the Personnel Committee excluding the Department Chair, pursuant to the department’s annual Faculty Evaluation Policy. Post-tenure Review and annual evaluation are therefore parts of a single process. 

For faculty members under Post-tenure Review, that review is merged into the annual evaluation process for that year. Each faculty member subject to Post-tenure Review shall also produce an annual evaluation report for the Personnel Committee; the Personnel Committee shall produce annual evaluation scores for such faculty members in respect of Teaching/advising, Research and Service in accordance with the History Department’s bylaws, such scores not being part of the Post-tenure Review. 

V. Joint Appointments

The faculty member shall provide both of their units with copies of that 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 shall go forward with each unit’s Post-tenure Review Committee preparing a separate evaluation and forwarding considerations by each Chair and/or Director to the Dean. In the case of a jointly-appointed faculty and unclassified academic staff member, 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.

VI. Post-tenure Review Committee

The History Department’s Personnel Committee shall conduct Post-tenure Reviews. Only tenured faculty may conduct Post-tenure Reviews. If too few members of the Personnel Committee hold the required ranks to conduct Post-tenure Reviews in respect of the cases under review, those ineligible to the PRC shall be replaced by alternates of the appropriate rank identified during the election of the Personnel Committee (in the order of the number of votes cast for each candidate). The History Department’s most recent vote on Personnel Committee membership shall be preserved and shall constitute an election of alternates to fill the place(s) of any Personnel Committee member(s) who withdraw(s) or is (or are) disqualified from a Post-tenure Review based on a conflict of interest or ineligibility. A full processor must chair the Post-tenure Review. The Department Chair may sit in during PRC meetings and deliberate but may not vote on Post-tenure Review determinations.

No person may serve on a Post-Tenure Review in a year in which any of the following is undergoing Post-tenure Review: (1) the person themself; (2) their spouse or partner; (3) a faculty member with whom the person is engaged in collaborative research. A Personnel Committee member who believes that there may be a conflict of interest should withdraw from the Post-tenure Review. If a faculty member who is undergoing Posttenure Review believes that a Personnel Committee member has a conflict of interest, the faculty member may object to the inclusion of that person on the PRC. If that person declines to withdraw, the remaining Personnel Committee members shall consider the basis for the alleged conflict and decide the question of eligibility.

VII. Preparation of the Post-tenure Review File

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

The faculty member under review shall provide a brief narrative statement of their accomplishments in research, teaching/advising, and service during the review period as they relate to their long-term career path and goals. In addition, the faculty member shall submit a current curriculum vitae and a list of any additional activities not covered on the curriculum vitae. The Chair shall furnish copies of the faculty member’s annual evaluation letters and any appeal documentation by the faculty member for the six years constituting the review period. The Personnel Committee shall rely on the evaluations contained in these letters.

VIII. Post-tenure Review: The Evaluation

For Post-tenure Review, the Personnel Committee shall review the faculty member’s file; the Personnel Committee shall evaluate achievements in the areas of research, teaching/advising, and service and provide a comprehensive evaluation of the faculty member’s overall performance. Applying the expectations defined in the department’s bylaws, the Personnel Committee shall consider only the faculty member’s overall performance and shall evaluate whether it (1) exceeds expectations, (2) meets expectations, or (3) fails to meet expectations. In making its evaluation, the Personnel Committee shall bear in mind that faculty members have differing responsibilities and make different kinds of contributions to the mission of the department, the College, and the University; that a faculty member’s activities vary over time according to their strengths, interests, and career path; and that innovative work may take time to reach fruition and may sometimes fail.

The Personnel Committee shall prepare a written report summarizing its evaluation of each faculty member under review. The report shall provide a narrative description of the faculty member’s activities, an explanation of the Personnel Committee's evaluation, and recommendations or suggestions for acknowledgement of contributions and the future development of the faculty member. The Personnel Committee shall provide a copy of the evaluation 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. The department shall retain records of the Personnel Committee's deliberations. The Post-tenure Review evaluation shall be considered as part of the annual Faculty Evaluation Policy and the Chair shall discuss the Post-tenure Review evaluation with the faculty member as part of that annual process. Any such discussion should concentrate on the future professional development of the faculty member with an aim of enhancing meritorious work and improving less satisfactory performance, including adoption of a performance improvement plan if necessary. Any action on the Post-tenure Review is within the scope of the Faculty Evaluation Policy and must be taken under that policy.

IX. Consideration of the Evaluation by the Chair and Dean

The Personnel Committee shall copy its evaluation (along with any response by the faculty member) to the Chair. If the Chair agrees or disagrees with the evaluation, they shall report that agreement or disagreement, with reasons, in writing to the faculty member; place a copy in his or her Post-tenure Review file; and send a copy to the Personnel Committee. The Chair may ask the Personnel Committee to provide additional information or reconsider its evaluation. If the Chair disagrees with a positive evaluation by the Personnel Committee, the faculty member may submit a written response which shall be included in his or her file. The Chair shall forward the file to the Dean of the College by the required date, and may provide additional information if requested by the Dean after consulting with the Personnel Committee. Post-tenure Review evaluations at all levels will ultimately be placed in the faculty member’s personnel file. 

X. Appeals

Following the completion of the review, if a disagreement between the Personnel Committee, the Chair or the Dean cannot be resolved or if the faculty member wishes to appeal an evaluation of “fails to meet expectations” in the overall evaluation, the matter shall be handled as an appeal under the History Department’s annual Faculty Evaluation Policy.