Teaching Professors Promotion, Museum Studies Program

 

Scope and Purpose. The award of promotion in rank is among the most important and far-reaching decisions made by the Museum Studies Program because an excellent teaching faculty is an essential component of any outstanding institution of higher learning. Promotion decisions also have a profound effect on the lives and careers of teaching faculty. Recommendations concerning promotion must be made carefully, based upon a thorough examination of the candidate’s record and the impartial application of these criteria and procedures. 

 

It is the purpose of this document to promote the rigorous and fair evaluation of teaching professors’ performance during the promotion process by (a) establishing criteria that express the Museum Studies Program’s expectations for meeting University standards in terms of disciplinary practices; (b) providing procedures for the initial evaluation of teaching, scholarship, and service; (c) preserving and enhancing the participatory rights of candidates, including the basic right to be informed about critical stages of the process and to have an opportunity to respond to negative evaluations; and (d) clarifying the responsibilities, roles, and relationships of the participants in the promotion review process.

 

The Museum Studies Program adheres to the minimum requirements established by the Teaching Professor Job Title Series Guidelines. Each level of review, including the initial review and the intermediate review, conducts an independent evaluation of a candidate’s record of performance and makes independent recommendations to the next review level. It is the responsibility of each person involved in the review process to exercise their own judgment to evaluate a teaching professor’s teaching, scholarship, and service based upon the entirety of the data and information in the record. No single source of information shall be considered a conclusive indicator of quality.

 

Academic Freedom. All teaching professors, regardless of rank, are entitled to academic freedom in relation to teaching and scholarship, and the right as citizens to speak on matters of public concern. Likewise, all teaching professors, regardless of rank, bear the obligation to exercise their academic freedom responsibly and in accordance with the accepted standards of their academic disciplines.

 

Confidentiality and Conflicts of Interest. Consideration and evaluation of a teaching professor’s record is a confidential personnel matter. Only those persons eligible to vote on promotion may participate in or observe deliberations or have access to the personnel file (except that clerical staff may assist in the preparation of documents under conditions that assure confidentiality).

 

No person shall participate in any aspect of the promotion process concerning a candidate when participation would create a clear conflict of interest or compromise the impartiality of an evaluation or recommendation. 

 

If a candidate believes that there is a conflict of interest, the candidate may petition to have that person recuse him/herself. If a committee member does not recuse him/herself, a decision about whether that person has a conflict of interest shall be made by a majority of the other committee members.

 

 

General Principles. The University strives for a consistent standard of quality against which the performance of all teaching professors is measured. University criteria for promotion require “demonstration of excellence in the application of evidenced-based teaching practices in the classroom and other criteria established at the school/department for teaching, scholarly engagement, and service.”

 

The nature of teaching professors’ activities varies across the University and a teaching professor’s record must be evaluated considering their particular responsibilities and the expectations of the discipline. Teaching should normally be given primary consideration, but the particular weight to be afforded to each component of a teaching professor’s activities depends upon the responsibilities specified in their position description.

 

Timeline for Promotion in Rank and Title. The Museum Studies Program follows the Office of Provost and Executive Vice Chancellor Teaching Professor Job Title Series Guidelines, which mandates evaluation every three years. The second 3rd-year evaluation of an assistant teaching professor must be conducted by the unit as a comprehensive review for consideration of promotion to associate teaching professor. If unsuccessful, an individual may request another review for promotion in subsequent years. An assistant teaching professor is not eligible to be promoted directly to the rank of Teaching Professor.

 

Associate teaching professors normally remain at the associate rank for six years. During the 6th year, the regular 3rd-year comprehensive review must be conducted as a review for promotion to (full) teaching professor, primarily based on demonstration of excellence in the application of evidence-based teaching practices in the classroom and impacting teaching and learning outside the Program at the University and/or national level, in addition to other criteria established at the Program level for teaching, scholarly engagement, and service. If unsuccessful, an individual may request another review for promotion in subsequent years.

 

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 teaching professor’s courses; peer and student evaluations; a candidate’s own statement of teaching philosophy and goals; public representations of teaching; and other accepted methods of evaluation, which may include external evaluations (see the Center for Teaching Excellence’s Benchmarks for Teaching Effectiveness Framework).

 

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.

 

The conduct of classes is the central feature of teaching responsibilities at KU, but teaching also includes supervising student research, mentoring and advising students, and other teaching-related activities outside of the classroom.

 

Under the University standards for the award of promotion to associate teaching professor, the record must demonstrate effective teaching, as reflected in such factors as command of the subject matter, the ability to communicate effectively in the classroom, a demonstrated commitment to student learning, and involvement in providing advice and support for students outside the classroom.

 

In the Museum Studies Program, the following teaching expectations to meet University standards apply for the award of promotion to the rank of associate teaching professor:

 

Candidates for promotion to associate teaching professor should demonstrate excellence in the application of evidence-based pedagogical practices. This profile should include a variety of evaluative elements from the entire scope of teaching activities in an interdisciplinary program, which include informal student advising and mentoring, offering directed readings and independent study courses as necessary, and formal service on final product committees. 

 

As indicated by multiple sources of evaluation (outlined above), the record must demonstrate that a candidate’s teaching reflects knowledge of their field and the recent developments therein, and that the candidate is 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 museum professionals. The record must also give indication of responsible fulfillment of all duties associated with teaching, including prompt and regular holding of class sessions and office hours, timely and sufficient grading and comments on assignments, acceptable and fair expectations and criteria for student work (as judged by disciplinary standards), adequate class preparation, and effective use of class time.

 

They should also demonstrate evidence of at least two of the following achievements (or equivalent evidence of teaching excellence): development of teaching innovations (e.g. development of new courses or significant redevelopment of existing ones; significant integration of DEIB principles into courses); participation in significant pedagogical initiatives (e.g., CTE programs or those offered through professional organizations); demonstrated effectiveness in student mentoring, advising, and/or professional development; offering training and professional development opportunities for program faculty or others at the university.

 

Under the University standards for promotion to the rank of teaching professor, the 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.

 

In the Museum Studies Program, the following expectations apply for the promotion to the rank of teaching professor: the candidate should demonstrate excellence in the application of evidence-based pedagogical practices in the classroom and impact teaching and learning outside the Program at the University and/or beyond. Candidates should demonstrate regular and competent service on M.A. final product committees; consistently strong evaluation by students and faculty using objective data where available; willingness to respond to the Program’s teaching needs, including offering directed readings and independent study courses as necessary; and success in creating and teaching innovative courses in response to developments in the profession.

 

They should also demonstrate evidence of at least three of the following achievements (or equivalent evidence of teaching excellence): development of teaching innovations (e.g. development of new courses or significant redevelopment of existing ones; significant integration of DEIB principles into courses); participation in significant pedagogical initiatives (e.g., CTE programs or those offered through professional organizations); demonstrated excellence in student mentoring, advising, and/or professional development; offering training and professional development opportunities for program faculty or others at the university.

 

Scholarship. The concept of “scholarship” encompasses not only traditional academic research and publication, but also the creation of artistic works or performances and any other products or activities accepted by the academic discipline as reflecting scholarly effort and achievement for purposes of promotion. While the nature of scholarship varies among disciplines, the University adheres to a consistently high standard of quality in its scholarly activities to which all faculty members, regardless of discipline, are held. Scholarship should be evaluated according to an individual teaching professor’s allocation of effort.

 

In the Museum Studies Program, scholarship is defined as the production of relevant articles, book chapters, books, and exhibition catalogs; the presentation of papers or lectures; participation in symposia at conferences, meetings of Museum Studies and other academic societies, and in other academic forums; and writing grant proposals to fund personal or institutional research programs. 

 

Given the professional, public-oriented nature of the Museum Studies profession, scholarship can also take the form of designing public-facing exhibitions (whether at museums or in digital format), engaging in curatorial or archiving projects, the development of educational curricula, or tools to aid in collections or digitization management. This list is meant to be suggestive, not exhaustive, in recognition of the interdisciplinary purview of Museum Studies, as well as the field’s ongoing evolution in digital methods. Key to the evaluation of such activities as scholarship is that they are informed by research and contribute to scholarly discourse in the field. They should reflect scholarly effort, academic rigor, and achievement for the purposes of promotion. Further, it is expected that research be disseminated to appropriate scholarly/public audiences and that they are subject to critical peer evaluation. Research achievement will be evaluated through the solicited external reviews, unpublished peer reviews, and published reviews of published works, as available.

 

Much of the advancement of museums depends on collaborative efforts. In museums, participation in collaborative scholarship is acknowledged as requiring an application of knowledge and expertise equivalent to that demonstrated in individual research and publication. Since the processes and rewards of promotion pertain to the accomplishments of the individual, not the group, clarification will be extended indicating the individual candidate’s role and particular achievement in collaborative research endeavors.

 

Under the University standards for the award of promotion to the rank of associate teaching professor, the record must demonstrate a successfully developing scholarly career, as reflected in such factors as the quality and quantity of publications or creative activities, external reviews of the candidate’s work by respected scholars or practitioners in the field, the candidate’s regional, national, or international reputation, and other evidence of an active and productive scholarly agenda.

 

As an interdisciplinary field, scholarship in Museum Studies can take many forms. For those whose scholarship takes the form of written books and articles, candidates should have in print or formally accepted and scheduled for publication: (a) a book-length peer-reviewed or refereed study with a respected press in the field or subfield; or (b) at least two substantial peer-reviewed or refereed articles in respected journals in the field or subfield, and/or substantial peer-reviewed or refereed chapters in books with a respected press in the field or subfield; or (c) at least two refereed exhibition catalogs, critical editions, collected volumes, journal issues, compilations, translations, or electronic publications. Categories (b) and (c) may be mixed. For any category, the publications may be on the candidate’s research, or may be refereed publications on matters of teaching/pedagogy. For all forms of scholarly output, candidates should provide information regarding the refereeing process and peer reviews, as appropriate.

 

The Museum Studies Program considers public-oriented scholarship and practice of equal merit and significance to published research. For those whose scholarship takes the form of curating collections, designing public exhibits (whether at an institution or in digital format), developing educational curricula, or designing professional tools, we encourage faculty to provide information about how the output was refereed/peer-reviewed and its public impact(s).

 

Writing grant applications and being awarded university and extramural funds are an indication of scholarly output and a strong research program and can aid in evaluating the trajectory of a candidate’s scholarship but cannot stand in for the above-listed scholarly outputs when evaluating a candidate for promotion.

Under the University standards for promotion to the rank of teaching professor, the record must demonstrate an established scholarly career, as reflected in such factors as an ongoing pattern of publication or creative activity, external reviews of the candidate’s work, and other evidence of an active and productive scholarly career.

 

In addition to work published or formally accepted and scheduled for publication at the time of their promotion to associate teaching professor, candidates should have in print or formally accepted and scheduled for publication: : (a) a book-length peer-reviewed or refereed study with a respected press in the field or subfield; or (b) at least two substantial peer-reviewed or refereed articles in respected journals in the field or subfield, and/or substantial peer-reviewed or refereed chapters in books with a respected press in the field or subfield; or (c) at least two refereed exhibition catalogs, critical editions, collected volumes, journal issues, compilations, translations, or electronic publications. Categories (b) and (c) may be mixed. For any category, the publications may be on the candidate’s research, or may be refereed publications on matters of teaching/pedagogy.

 

For those whose scholarship takes the form of curating collections, designing public exhibits (whether at an institution or in digital format), developing educational curricula, or designing professional tools, scholarly output should be shown to be of equal merit and significance as the above-listed guidelines for peer-reviewed, published written work. For all forms of scholarly output, candidates should provide information regarding the refereeing process and peer reviews, as appropriate.

 

Writing grant applications and being awarded university and extramural funds are an indication of scholarly output and a strong research program and can aid in evaluating the trajectory of a candidate’s scholarship but cannot stand in for the above-listed scholarly outputs when evaluating a candidate for promotion.

 

Service. Service is an important responsibility of all faculty members that contributes to the University’s performance of its larger mission. Although the nature of service activities will depend on a candidate’s particular interests and abilities, service contributions are an essential part of being a good citizen of the University. The Museum Studies Program accepts and values service within the University, scholarly service to the discipline or profession, and community outreach at the local, state, national, or international level.

 

In the Museum Studies Program, service includes regular and meaningful participation in activities necessary to the successful functioning of the Program, College, and/or University. Within the program, this includes service on the Museum Studies Executive Committee, as well as activities such as student recruitment, administration, and reviewing student applications. Wider university activities include service on College or University committees, on governance institutions, holding an administrative position, etc. Service external to the university includes community outreach, memberships on committees or institutional boards of directors, memberships on editorial or advisory boards; judging grant and prize competitions, offices in professional organizations, conducting ad hoc workshops, and organizing conferences or lectures. These lists are meant to be suggestive, not exhaustive.

 

Under the University standards for the award of promotion to associate teaching professor, the record must demonstrate a pattern of service to the university at one or more levels, to the discipline or profession, and/or to the local, state, regional, national, or international communities.

 

Under the University standards for promotion to the rank of teaching professor, candidates must 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, regional, national, or international communities. Promotion to the rank of professor includes continuation of the above-listed activities, with a particular emphasis on leadership. Such roles may include administrative offices within the University, disciplinary/professional organizations, and/or within the community; service in an editorial capacity for publications or as a referee for journals/presses/exhibitions. This list is meant to be suggestive, not exhaustive.

 

Rating for Performance. Using the criteria described above, the candidate’s performance in the areas of teaching, scholarship, and service will be rated using the terms “excellent,” “very good,” “good,” “marginal,” or “poor,” defined as follows:

 

a) “Excellent” means that the candidate substantially exceeds expectations for promotion to this rank.

b) “Very Good” means the candidate exceeds expectations for promotion to this rank.

c) “Good” means the candidate meets expectations for promotion to this rank.

d) “Marginal” means the candidate falls below expectations for promotion to this rank.

e) “Poor” means the candidate falls significantly below expectations for promotion to this rank.

 

Absent exceptional circumstances, no candidate may be recommended for promotion without meeting standards (i.e., rating “Good” or better) in all applicable areas of performance.

 

 

Teaching Professor Promotion Committee. Any teaching professor seeking promotion shall have their candidacy evaluated by a promotion committee, established as follows. The committee shall include the Program’s tenured and tenure-track faculty as well as the program’s unclassified academic staff and teaching faculty with rank equivalent to or higher than the rank for which they are applying. For all committee members, regardless of aforementioned status, at least 0.25 FTE in the program is required for membership on the committee. If the committee constituted in this way has fewer than three people, one or two Affiliate faculty members with the necessary rank are asked to the serve on the committee, in consultation with the Executive Dean of the College.

 

No students, faculty, or staff, other than those indicated above, shall serve on a teaching faculty member’s promotion committee.

 

Initiation of Review. Typically, an assistant teaching professor is considered for promotion to associate in the sixth year at the assistant rank; promotion to full is typically considered in the sixth year of service at the rank of associate teaching professor.

 

At the beginning of the spring semester before the sixth year, the unit shall consider the qualifications of all teaching faculty below the rank of (full) teaching professor, with a view toward possible promotion in rank during the following academic year. After considering a teaching professor’s qualifications, if the unit determines that those qualifications may warrant promotion in rank, or if the teaching professor requests it, the unit shall initiate procedures for reviewing the teaching professor for promotion.

 

Preparation of the Promotion File. NOTE: Candidates who hold joint appointments prepare only one set of promotion materials for review by both units in which they hold an appointment. The initial review units (i.e., departments, centers, etc.) shall consult with each other on their evaluations and the evaluation process, but each initial review unit must provide a separate evaluation of the candidate’s performance in the unit. 

 

Candidates for promotion to associate or full teaching professor should gather materials to be submitted in the “Multi-Term Faculty Report” to the Promotion Committee by the deadline set by the department. The template for this report is currently available at: Multi-Term Faculty | Office of Faculty Affairs.

 

The Teaching Professor Promotion Committee shall receive the Multi-Term Faculty Report form and accompanying materials from the candidate. The Committee will conduct a Multi-Term Faculty Unit Review of the candidate’s teaching, scholarship, and service.

 

Recommendations. Upon completion of the record, the committee conducting the initial review shall evaluate the candidate’s record of teaching, scholarship, and service considering the applicable standards and criteria and make recommendations in accordance with the voting procedures detailed below.

 

After the promotion committee has discussed all aspects of the promotion case, each member of the Teaching Professor Promotion Committee is asked to provide, by secret ballot, a rating for teaching, research, and service, as well as a vote to recommend or not recommend promotion. These votes are counted and tallied by the Chair of the Teaching Professor Promotion Committee to arrive at the final recommendation. A simple majority of votes is required for a favorable recommendation.

 

The promotion committee shall prepare the Multi-Term Faculty Unit Review. The forms and recommendations shall be forwarded to the Director, who shall indicate separately, in writing, whether they concur or disagree with the recommendation of the promotion committee. The Director shall communicate the recommendation of the Unit Review, and their concurrence or disagreement with the recommendation, to the candidate and provide the candidate with a copy of the summary evaluation section of the promotion form. The candidate may submit a written response to a negative recommendation by the Department or to a final rating of teaching, research, or service below the level of “good” included in the evaluation section of the recommendation. Negative recommendations shall be communicated in writing and, if the review will not be forwarded automatically, the Director shall inform the candidate that they may request that the record be forwarded to the Dean’s Office for further review.

 

Recommendations, together with the record of the unit review, shall be forwarded to the Dean’s Office by the deadline set by the CLAS Dean’s Office for an independent intermediate administrative review.