This does not constitute an employment contract. 

DEPARTMENT of ART 

Tenure, Promotion, and Retention Guidelines

Approved March 2023 by the Office of the Provost  

Departmental criteria to be applied in personnel actions involving reappointment, promotion, and tenure, in supplement to the minimum standards described in American University's Faculty Manual, sections 10 and 15. 

Introduction

This document seeks to make the criteria used in evaluations for personnel actions more useful and transparent for faculty members applying for reappointment, promotion, or tenure, as well as for the department's Rank and Tenure Committee and department chair when acting on reappointment, promotion, or tenure. In accordance with American University’s Faculty Manual, the Department of Art affirms academic freedom for all faculty by free choice of topics, themes, genres, methods, protocols, collaborators, and venues, etc., in the areas of faculty evaluation that follow.  

The department shall base the evaluation of its faculty’s work and contributions, and its consequent recommendation for reappointment, tenure, and/or promotion of tenure-line, and term faculty on the professor sequence, on three key considerations: Scholarship (which comprehends research, creative, and professional activities), Teaching, and Service. Term faculty on the Professor sequence are expected to meet the standards of research of the tenure line but without the customary tenure clock. Evaluation criteria for faculty on the Professorial Lecturer sequence shall comprise Teaching, Service, and Currency in the Field (see Section 4 below).

The department expects excellence in teaching and scholarship. A professor who does not make sufficient contributions to scholarship during the pre-tenure years, in accordance with the guidelines below, will not receive promotion to Associate Professor and/or tenure, whatever their teaching record. An excellent scholar who does not teach effectively will not receive promotion or tenure. The department also expects a demonstrated commitment to service within the unit, department, university, and externally, as appropriate to rank and discipline.  

The Department of Art’s guidelines were written with the aim of combating discrimination, bias, and the systems of power that enable and perpetuate inequities, including, but not limited to, inequities of race, gender, sexuality, age, disability, religion, and national origin. Department faculty at all ranks are encouraged, when the scope of their scholarship, teaching, and service permits, to include diverse perspectives and voices, and to expand understanding of issues of power, privilege, inclusion, and exclusion, whether contemporary or historical. Therefore, when applicable, candidates for promotion at any rank should describe how they address diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) principles in their scholarship, teaching, and service. Candidates might also describe approaches taken to make the classroom an inclusive and welcoming space for all students. Other possibilities include, but are not limited to, the suggestions provided in the disciplinary subsets that follow. In the context of scholarship and teaching, again where applicable, candidates are encouraged to explain how DEI relates to standards and practices in their field(s) of study or pedagogy. In addition to communicating and adhering to a transparent set of standards, review faculty will provide substantive weight to issues of equity and civil discourse in all appointment, tenure, promotion, and reappointment cases. At the same time, they will accommodate any privacy concerns 2 that arise. Faculty mentors will provide additional information concerning AU DEI resources to their mentees and will be alert to ways in which different backgrounds and experiences may benefit from additional support.  

Candidates must submit, and may add new information to, their Files for Action in accordance with the annual “Instructions for Submitting Files for Action”. External reviewers involved in the tenure and/or promotion process will be provided with the present set of guidelines together with AU’s DEI guidelines. For further detail of types of contributions not covered in this document, faculty should refer to the department’s Merit Guidelines (available from the chair upon request). The present document does not intend to provide any quantitative scale to measure faculty work and performance. Rather, all work and activities shall be measured in accordance with their quality, not simply their quantity.

1.  SCHOLARSHIP

Given the disparate nature of the three disciplines within the department, Art History, Graphic Design and Studio Art, this section outlines different parameters for each discipline. In all three disciplines, to achieve promotion or tenure, the candidate should not only have produced a substantial body of work, as defined in this document, prior to the time of the review, but they should show evidence of a clear and discernible trajectory of upcoming research or creative activity. A faculty member’s recent creative and scholarly trajectory can be the best indicator of future activity. Additional evidence of ongoing and future work can be presented in the form of work or scholarship recently published, exhibited, or selected in refereed or edited competition; work submitted for publication, competition, or exhibition, and pending a decision; and ongoing publications or continued creative and professional production. The evaluation of promise of ongoing scholarly activity shall be determined in the internal and external reviews provided by scholars and academic professionals whose work is most closely connected to the candidate’s discipline.

The department recognizes that on occasion, although not the norm, in any of the three departmental areas (Graphic Design, Art History, and Studio Art) collaboration and co-authorship can be part of the process leading to a final work of art, design project, book, publication of edited anthologies, or publication of journal articles and book chapters. Candidates will articulate the precise nature of their contribution to the collaborative work.

1.1 Art History

The Department of Art and the Art History Program consider evidence of scholarship to typically consist of published books, articles in peer reviewed journals, book chapters and anthology essays, reviews, and papers and lectures presented at scholarly conferences. In all cases, the work shall be considered only to the extent that it is accessible for review to peers within the discipline. All work published or accepted for publication since highest degree completion, along with evidence of continuing scholarly productivity while the individual has been a member of the American University faculty, shall count towards tenure and promotion requirements. While emphasis will be given to work performed at American University, the entire c.v. will be considered during the evaluation period.

In the field of Art History, the standard for awarding tenure remains a combination of at least one article in a peer reviewed venue plus a book. For the purposes of tenure and promotion, a book or article will be considered to have been published if it has appeared in print, or if the final manuscript, including all revisions, has been accepted by the publisher, ratified by an editor’s letter confirming acceptance. The publisher must be a reputable university or academic press or a commercial press that is known for academic publications. Reviewers are to consider the potential for bias among publication venues throughout a faculty member’s career arc, which in some cases predate understandings of structural bias. These considerations may include instances when the scholarship under review focuses on DEI-related issues and/or when the faculty under review is a member of a diversity group that may have been marginalized in the academy and by publishers.

Although the premier format for creative scholarship in Art History is a book, the difficulty in publishing monographs and broader historical studies, particularly because of the costs for reproduction of art works on the part of both the author and the press, must somewhat lessen our reliance on this standard. A series of significant substantive articles, published in outstanding competitive and refereed journals or anthologies, should be given substantial weight in tenure considerations. Given the growing prevalence of electronic publication options, publication of a book manuscript in electronic format is acceptable, provided that standards of quality, academic rigor, respected venue, and peer review are met.  

The Department recognizes that quantitative measures of scholarship and hierarchies of formats for publication are imperfect and that quality of production, as reviewed by peers, should be the standard grounds for evaluation. Furthermore, many journals published outside the United States have selection procedures that do not match the American system of peer review. This is true of even the most highly regarded and prestigious journals and does not by itself suggest that the journal is any less rigorous or selective than its American counterparts. In the absence of homogeneous procedures, it is not possible to accurately rank journals for the purpose of assessing the quality of scholarship published in them. Nevertheless, evidence of impact, such as percentage of accepted manuscripts, citation counts, award and award nominations, and journal rankings, will be reported as available, and considered as part of a holistic review.  

The Department recognizes that judgments of a candidate’s publications should be qualitative in nature, based on the assessment of expert reviewers who have read the work and can compare it to the state of scholarship in the field to which it contributes; external reviewers will be asked to provide assessment of the research and the journal's importance in the field. Published reviews of books produced by candidates under review will also be considered as relevant forms of peer review.

The Art History Program identifies the ranked items in the Table of Elements of the Department’s Merit Guidelines as suitable to demonstrate scholarly productivity, with the expectation of a single-authored book plus at least one additional peer-reviewed publication as the continuing standard for tenure. In addition to refereed publications, among the most valued Elements are an edited book or journal issue, a book series editorship, national awards for scholarship, and major curated exhibitions. Elements considered important are non-refereed publications and edited volumes, curatorial consultancies, presentations of original research at conferences and by invitation, and evidence of research progress.  

While the Table of Elements privileges peer-reviewed publications, in line with expectations across the university, it is important to note that some publications that are not subject to peer review, such as museum and collection catalogs, and certain contributions to anthologies (such as invited contributions) involve a rigorous, thorough selection and evaluation process. Editors and/or curatorial teams that produce exhibition catalogues for museums of national and international status, and these museums’ editorial departments and consultants, carefully evaluate the scholarship contained within. Invited essays of this sort therefore may carry significant prestige that external reviewers can address. The Department therefore advises that the different levels of internal and external review for tenure and promotion evaluate scholarly publication in art history without regard to whether the publisher is academic or museum-based, considering, as mentioned before, that qualitative evaluation is the paradigm for review.

The acquisition of fellowships and grants, although highly desirable, is extremely competitive in the field of Art History and varies substantially depending on subfield and research subjects and methods. For this reason, grant acquisition should be respected, but should not be used as a primary standard for judging the excellence of an individual scholar’s work.  

Faculty seeking promotion to the rank of Professor shall demonstrate a continued trajectory of excellence in scholarship in accordance with the parameters outlined above. Given the increasing economic challenges to the publication of monographs or narrowly defined art historical studies in book form, we value the publication of subsequent book manuscripts by faculty at that rank but emphasize that the criteria for assessing continuing and significant scholarly productivity should remain substantial quality research published in refereed, peer-reviewed journals and edited anthologies, and museum catalogs and other invited publications.

1.2 Studio Art

Faculty shall provide documentation of exhibitions and creative accomplishments, research, publications, and scholarly activity in a format required by the university in order to facilitate review of the c.v. The creative work of arts faculty is not extra-academic and should therefore be regarded as equivalent to that of academics in other disciplines. The primary criterion for evaluation of an art faculty’s creative work is a comprehensive record of exhibitions and comparable activities. The exhibition of creative work is to be regarded as analogous to publication in other fields. These exhibitions and creative accomplishments should take place at professional venues that are appropriate to the nature of the artist’s work. Though these exhibitions may be in connection with traditional venues such as galleries, museums, nonprofit art centers, university galleries, and artist-defined spaces, contemporary artistic practice frequently extends to activities such as public performance and intervention, cultural events, new media platforms, and curatorial projects. For the purposes of evaluation for promotion and tenure, exhibitions of creative work in different venues constitute unique separate events, regardless of whether each exhibition contains new or pre-existing work. However, separate exhibitions of preexisting work cannot in and of themselves substitute for the investigation and exhibition of new creative work. The faculty member shall provide evidentiary documentation of their exhibition/event record (exhibition announcements, invitations, press releases, reviews, etc.). In sum, the candidate must articulate and contextualize the importance of all aspects of the creative practice, bearing in mind that further qualitative evaluation will be provided by departmental and external reviewers. The criteria by which art venues are qualified are clearly articulated in the Department’s Merit Guidelines. All significant exhibitions since highest degree completion, along with evidence of continuing scholarly productivity while the individual has been a member of the American University faculty, shall count towards tenure and promotion requirements. Reviews, citations in articles, and inclusion in catalogues and other publications, should be considered in determining peer significance of creative work, as well as curatorial inclusions, selections, and invitations to exhibit. Artist residencies, grants, fellowships, and awards are further evidence of accomplishments in the field. Additional recognition of a faculty member’s work by their peers may come in the form of invitations to present lectures about one’s work, conduct workshops, participate on panels, and contribute to published works. Faculty in the studio arts may also be acknowledged for contributions to the field through the c.v. which will be considered during the evaluation period. For collaborative projects, the candidate should make clear the nature of their own contribution either in the c.v. or university reporting system.

The Department also recognizes that practicing artists in certain areas need to spend time researching new technologies and techniques, and the extent to which this research impinges upon, or otherwise affects, creative output should be defined by the faculty member and be taken into account in any evaluation of their activity. The Department acknowledges the importance of cultural institutions, community centers, and non-traditional venues that emphasize the work of affinity groups or serve diverse communities in terms of gender/sexuality, race/ethnicity, religion, and ability. These venues may be of high importance within communities, though may not have regional/national/international reputations. Reviewers, both internal and external, should consider the potential for bias among exhibition and cultural venues throughout a faculty member’s career arc, which in some cases predate understandings of structural bias. Structural biases have the ability to impact the creation, public presentation, programming, and recognition of a faculty’s creative research. These considerations may include instances when the creative work and activities under review focus on DEI-related issues and/or when the faculty under review is a member of a diversity group that may have been marginalized in the academy and by venues. Freedom of expression and inquiry must be supported and protected, and at no time can potentially controversial subject matter of artistic work be used against the candidate in the evaluation of the work's quality and impact.

Tenured faculty seeking promotion to the rank of Professor shall demonstrate a continued trajectory of excellence in scholarship or creative activity in accordance with the parameters outlined above and continued or growing national or international recognition in their discipline.

1.3 Graphic Design

The discipline of graphic design is quite diverse in nature, and the department acknowledges the wide range in creative, professional, and scholarly work in which faculty in design may engage. Designers may be involved in the creation of professional work for clients, experimental work that includes venues of review closer to the studio arts, as well as traditional scholarly work in the form of articles, conference presentations, books, invited lectures, etc. While emphasis will be given to work performed at American University, the entire c.v. will be considered during the evaluation period.

A very significant part of graphic design is professional practice, and thus the work produced for clients, whether for pay or pro bono, can constitute the bulk of a faculty member’s creative production. For such work, the selection of a designer by a client is a competitive and highly selective process that includes considerations of quality and competence. Design faculty who engage in professional practice do so in a part-time capacity, and often within the constraints that their educational institution imposes on the amount of time they may dedicate to remunerated consulting activities. As such, securing a client in a proposal submission process places the designer in direct competition with larger design firms and agencies that can dedicate multiple designers and support personnel to the project. Consequently, if a design faculty member carries on his/her own design professional practice, the nature of his/her clients can provide indication of the quality of the work done, and should be considered analogous to having work accepted in a juried or curated exhibition. This is especially true when the faculty member has won the account of a major corporation through a regional or national competition. Such professional engagements should be properly documented (scope of the work, duration of engagement, dissemination, and visibility of the work, etc.). In such cases, professional work shall be considered analogous to a studio artist’s gallery exhibitions: they both are selective, competitive, and commercial in nature, and the reputation and visibility of each can be assessed, albeit not quantified. Faculty should seek structured venues of peer review of their professional and creative work. Such peer review venues include but are not limited to: juried or curated competitions, selection of his/her work trade publications, books, annuals, et cetera, as outlined in the following paragraphs.

Faculty are strongly advised not to rely exclusively on professional practice to accumulate a record of accomplishment towards promotion and tenure. In rare cases, however, professional practice can generate design work that is of outstanding national or international visibility and impact; in such cases this type of creative/professional work can serve as evidence of accomplishments towards promotion and tenure only to the degree that the work’s impact can be assessed. In the absence of formal awards related to such professional work, faculty can provide other measures of impact through, among other means, documented national or international recognition, notable targeted impact (such as the success of a campaign, project outcomes, etc.), media reviews, showcases, critiques or analysis of such work appearing in printed or digital publications that cover design practices. As part of their role in the promotion and tenure review process, external reviewers can provide specific evaluation and endorsement of professional work in the absence of formal awards. Their positive and contextualized evaluation is a required validation for professional practice to constitute the sole or principal evidence towards promotion and tenure. For such purpose, external reviewers shall evaluate the impact of the work by addressing its quality, scope, visibility and distribution, and its significance in the context of design practice and the advancement of such practice. They should also address the significance of any existing published reviews or analysis of the work in trade publications. Faculty commissioned or remunerated consulting activities should be cleared with the dean’s office.

A common venue for peer review is in the form of juried competitions that result in the selected work appearing in publications (whether printed or in digital form) and sometimes (though rarely) exhibitions. These competitions are sponsored by reputable design organizations, design publications or publishing houses and are often published as annual issues for periodical publications or as books for publishing houses. A very small number of design organizations and competitions offer actual exhibitions that supplement the publication. When awards are offered, they indicate additional recognition of the significance of the award- winner’s design(s). In such cases, each instance of publication, even if pertaining to the same work, shall be considered as a separate instance, and the quality of each venue or publication, its international, national or regional scope and competitiveness shall be articulated separately.

The design of new typographic alphabets (i.e., typefaces) is also a significant area of creative activity. The faculty member working in this area may exhibit new typeface designs in juried competitions and be featured in recognized design publications and annuals. In addition, a typeface design may be selected for representation by one or more recognized type companies, and this should be considered a significant publishing venue. Often designers also have opportunities to publish on the topics of design, pedagogy, technology, and other topics related to graphic design and the teaching of design. Critical essays, book, or exhibition reviews, writing of textbooks, magazine/journal articles, chapters in design texts or collections of essays, are all recognized forms of publishing in the design area. In situations in which the publication may not include a peer-review process, the faculty shall articulate the importance and relevance of the publication and internal and external reviewers will provide additional qualitative evaluation.  

In evaluating the scholarship of design faculty, the Department of Art adheres to the Guidelines for Retention and Tenure of Art and Design Faculty of the College Art Association (CAA), the preeminent international leadership organization in the visual arts, The CAA guidelines specify that “[e]xhibitions, art commissions, design commissions including commercial and/or client-based work, and/or peer-reviewed creative activities are to be regarded as analogous to publications in other fields.”

Publications and other venues to publish peer-reviewed written scholarship and juried or curated creative work in graphic design have diminished in the past decade, such that few national or international journals, professional or academic in nature, remain available to faculty for the dissemination of creative work or written critical, pedagogical, theoretical, or historical research in the discipline. Opportunities for dissemination through peer-reviewed conference presentations remain robust, however. Reviewers of faculty files for action should be cognizant that presentations resulting from peer review are to be considered important if the hosting institution or organization is a national or international one, with a rigorous selection process, whether the venue be professional or academic. Given the diverse range of professional design practices, the collaborative engagement in the discipline, and the interdisciplinary nature of design, the program also acknowledges that conferences and venues that might not have design as their primary focus can be equally significant venues for such presentations, while emphasizing the importance of peer review. National conferences and international conferences, whether professional or academic, shall be given greater importance than regional or local venues. When conference presentations are the result of invitation rather than a selection process by peers, they shall be considered of lesser value as a scholarly or creative contribution, being more indicative of professional or academic prominence. Serving as a panelist (invited or selected) at recognized international, national, or regional design or academic conferences, shall  be considered indicative of professional stature, but its value will depend on the faculty member's role in such panels and the nature of their contribution as assessed by the program and external reviewers. As such, the faculty member shall provide detailed descriptions of the nature of their role in such instances.

The department also recognizes that practicing designers need to spend time researching new technology—especially computer technology and software. The extent to which this research impinges upon, or otherwise affects, the faculty member’s output should be taken into account in any evaluation of their activity.

Invited lectures and presentations can be indicators of impact and visibility, and the department shall weigh such activities as they relate to the stature of sponsors and audience (university, association, publication); scope of presentation or participation (delivering a paper prepared in addition to visual work, portfolio presentation); and critical reviews.

Faculty concentrating their efforts in research scholarship would be expected to work in areas consistent with their academic preparation and teaching assignments. It is assumed that the candidate’s output would make an original contribution to the body of knowledge about design or about design education (this category could include teaching innovation when done in ways that take a research perspective and yield results that can be extrapolated to the field).  

Seeking or securing externally funded grants is not a requirement for obtaining promotion and tenure in the design program. The availability of grants for a professional creative discipline such as design has been historically small in number, and often unavailable for some design practices. Nevertheless, research efforts with or without external funding may achieve results worthy of evaluation. In such cases, the university shall rely on external reviewers for peer assessment of the quality of the research, the relevance of the project to the discipline, and its potential to garner future funding, dissemination, or publication opportunities.  

For faculty concentrating their efforts in experimental or non-client-oriented work, exhibitions and screenings of their work may be a main venue of peer review and as such, they shall follow the documentation and qualitative indications outlined for Studio Art.

Tenured faculty seeking promotion to the rank of Professor shall demonstrate a continued trajectory of excellence in accordance with the parameters outlined above and continued or growing national or international recognition in their field.

2. TEACHING

The Department of Art expects its faculty to be actively engaged in the classroom and to provide quality instruction. Assessment of student performance varies per class and instructor; however, it is expected that student performance be evaluated in an objective, fair, and timely manner. Candidates for promotion and/or tenure should demonstrate successful teaching through a variety of means.

Section 10.a of the Faculty Manual specifies that:

Excellent teaching enables students to acquire knowledge, develop critical thinking skills, and become active participants in the learning process. Faculty are expected to provide timely, fair, and objective evaluations of student performance. Each teaching unit or academic unit establishes guidelines for evaluating teaching by members of that unit. In each case, these evaluation metrics must extend beyond student evaluations of teaching. Faculty may demonstrate teaching excellence through a variety of ways, including course design, development of new curricular initiatives, up-to-date course content, advising of students, student engagement and achievement outside the classroom, and adherence to evaluation procedures that accurately reflect student accomplishments. Teaching units or academic units may also view publication and presentation of teaching materials and methodologies as a contribution to teaching. Additional ways of evaluating teaching may include, but are not limited to, the items made available to faculty by academic units and the Office of the Dean of Faculty.

Teaching is central to the department's and university's missions and thus plays a prominent role in tenure and promotion decisions. To be considered for tenure and/or promotion, a faculty member must demonstrate effectiveness in the classroom. Effectiveness will be determined, in part, through the evaluation of teaching portfolios (https://www.american.edu/provost/academicaffairs/faculty-resources.cfm; scroll down) included in files for major faculty actions (tenure, promotion, third-year review, and the initial multi-year term appointment). Individual programs may determine portfolio options within the following CAS-stipulated parameters:  

A minimum of 5 total items is required: 1) Teaching statement + (2) SETs numerical scores weighted no more than 50% of portfolio + At least one item from each of the following categories: (3) self-assessment, (4) peer assessment, and (5) student assessment other than numerical scores. If there are insufficient SETS due to statistically insignificant response rates, an alternative item may be selected in consultation with the department chair. The length of the teaching portfolio will conform to that specified in the annual memo from the CFA/DOF (Instructions for Submitting Files for Action).  

Recognizing that many junior faculty members are undertaking full classroom responsibilities for the first time when they join the AU faculty (and even experienced professors may find the AU student body to be different from students elsewhere), when reviewing the SET component, the department assesses the full distribution of the responses to particular questions and whether there is a trend of improvement after a faculty member’s arrival at AU.

AU’s Beyond SETs guidelines were drafted, in part, to account for the documented bias that women, people of color, and other marginalized groups experience in student evaluations of teaching (1) . The Department of Art recognizes and considers how cultural bias towards faculty (identity, ability, and language) may impact student responses. Reviewers will therefore consider potential bias concerns when evaluating the SET component. They will also consider the problem of relatively poor statistical outcomes tied to outlier responses in small classes. Other contexts, such as the challenges faced by faculty teaching large sections or general education courses, courses that represent new preparations, or certain difficult (required) courses, will be taken into account. The department also considers the richness of the syllabus, the level of engagement that takes place in the classroom, the rigor of the course, and other factors that enhance active learning. departmental review of SETs and the overall teaching portfolio will ultimately be a holistic rather than numerically quantified assessment.

Faculty in the Department of Art are expected, when the scope of their courses permits, to address issues of diversity, equity, and inclusion in their teaching, which the department considers as one marker of teaching excellence. Examples may include, but are not limited to: course content, instructional practice and pedagogy, materials selected for inclusion in syllabi, and steps taken to make the classroom an inclusive and welcoming space for all students. A teaching portfolio should, when applicable, demonstrate evidence of equitable support of learning across all student constituencies. This could include, for example, antibias or decolonizing approaches; antibias materials relating to traditionally marginalized groups, including but not limited to those identified above; culturally relevant teaching, critical literacies (2); and universal design for learning (3); among other equity-oriented teaching techniques.

1 It is well documented that women and professors of color, and instructors in other identity groups, often have disproportionately lower evaluations and face challenges in the classroom: see the Faculty Senate’s 2019 Beyond SETs Task Force Final Report.
2 Critical literacy is a learning approach where students are expected to examine various “texts” to understand the relationship between language and the power it can hold. Students critically analyze and evaluate the meaning of “texts” as they relate to topics on equity, power and social justice.
3 Universal Design for Learning is an educational framework based on research in the learning sciences, including cognitive neuroscience, that guides the development of flexible learning environments and learning spaces that can accommodate individual learning differences.

The department seeks other evidence of teaching excellence. Positive comments by students, teaching assistants, CTRL reviews, and colleagues who have shared a classroom, served as colleagues on a thesis or dissertation committee, or shared other teaching experiences, as well as awards for teaching excellence, also strengthen the candidate's case. New courses or programs developed by the candidate, innovative pedagogical approaches in the classroom, teaching Honors colloquia, interdisciplinary collaboration in teaching, efforts to promote student research, mentoring students who apply for prestigious awards, and special lectures given to a broad audience of faculty, students, and others, also provide evidence of skills inherent in excellent teaching. Other examples include, but are not limited to, the following:

a. Course syllabi and project briefs
b. New course development and curricular innovations in any modality, up-to-date course content, innovative use of classroom formats or technologies
c. External peer evaluations of a candidate’s contributions to curriculum planning and evaluation
d. Recognition of student work outside the university, through the receipt of awards or its inclusion or publication in peer-reviewed, curated, refereed, or juried venues, whether academic or creative, printed, or digital. In such cases the faculty member shall articulate the importance of such venues.
e. A representative collection of samples of student’s creative work produced under the guidance of the faculty member
f. Publication and presentation of teaching materials and methodologies; community service components
g. internship supervision
h. Supervising independent studies and theses
i. Initiatives to encourage student scholarship
j. Teaching awards

Classroom teaching is only one part of a faculty member's teaching duties. Contact with students outside the traditional classroom setting is a factor in evaluating teaching. Organizing seminars, colloquia, conferences, supervising theses and independent studies, and advising of students are important types of teaching. Frequent and active presence on campus is crucial to these endeavors. Additional possible evidence can include contributions to the pedagogical discourse of the discipline, development of new courses and curricula, serving as a peer observer of teaching, etc.

Ideally, a faculty member should be highly successful in the full range of teaching levels: introductory courses offered primarily for non-majors (usually these are AU Core courses), upper-level undergraduate courses for majors and majors in related disciplines, and master’s level courses. However, individual faculty members usually have particular strengths in teaching different levels of students or types of courses, and department needs often dictate specialization. Nonetheless, there is an expectation that a faculty member should demonstrate effectiveness in teaching both undergraduate and, when applicable, graduate courses. All faculty are expected to be flexible in accepting teaching assignments in response to department needs (subject to a reasonable number of separate preparations), even if their research becomes specialized in other directions.

Faculty seeking promotion to the rank of Professor should demonstrate a continued trajectory of excellence in teaching while in the rank of Associate Professor, in accordance with the parameters outlined above.  

3.  SERVICE

The Department of Art values the participation of its faculty in service, both internal (to the academic program, to the department, the college, the university) and external (the community, professional organizations, etc.). When the scope of their service permits, faculty should address diversity, equity, and inclusion issues. This might include, but is not limited to, relevant issues in committee assignments and work, and curricular revisions incorporating DEI content.

Although the assigned service responsibilities will vary according to the faculty member’s rank, it is expected that all faculty will be involved in service. For pre-tenure faculty, it is understood that an ability to contribute in a productive manner will 10 begin primarily within the academic program and the department, in capacities such as participation on internal committees related to graduate admissions, comprehensive exams, program development, and/or searches, and through advising, internship supervision, etc. However, as pre-tenure faculty become eligible to experience committee work at the college or university level, they should seek opportunities to do so without jeopardizing progress toward tenure, and the department will encourage them to do so.

The scope of service and level of performance (as reported by colleagues) will be considered. Additional service contributions may include, but are not limited to, the following:

a. Advising or presenting to student groups
b. Participation at departmental and university events (i.e. preview days, admissions reviews, graduation)
c. Contributions to the general well-being of the department (maintenance of classrooms, installation of exhibits, etc.)
d. Service on boards of directors (local/regional/national/international)
e. Volunteerism on professional projects f. Pro bono design services not considered under scholarship
g. Contributions to professional journals that are not reviewed under scholarship
h. Service as accreditation or program reviewer at other institutions
i. Service on thesis or dissertation committees at other institutions
j. Service as tenure and promotion evaluator for other institutions
k. Presentations to middle and high school groups l. Work with K-12 teachers, guidance counselors, and principals

To assure strong and effective faculty governance, tenured members of the faculty have a special responsibility to contribute to the health of their department, school, and university. We expect from candidates for the rank of Professor not only individual excellence in scholarship and teaching, but also leadership in service that builds the collective excellence of the department, school, and university. Tenured faculty seeking promotion to Professor are expected to have participated in a wider range of service activities at the college or university level and/or to have increased their level of responsibility or leadership within the department (for example, by chairing a committee, serving as a program director, or being elected department chair).

4. Criteria for the Evaluation of Term Faculty on the Professorial Lecturer Sequence
Unless the faculty member’s appointment letter specifies otherwise, term faculty on the Professorial Lecturer sequence in the Department of Art will be evaluated on teaching, service, and currency in the field. In its evaluation of such faculty, the department will adhere to the CAS Omnibus Criteria for the Reappointment and Promotion of Term Faculty (available from the chair upon request).