• Home
  • Post-Tenure Review Criteria and Procedures, Film and Media Studies Department

Post-Tenure Review Criteria and Procedures, Film and Media Studies Department

Policy
Procedure
Purpose: 

To articulate the criteria and procedures for post-tenure review for the Film & Media Studies Department.

Applies to: 

Tenured faculty members in the Department of Film & Media Studies

Campus: 
Lawrence
Policy Statement: 

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 Film and Media Studies, hereafter referred to as the Department, has adopted these expectations and procedures for conducting post-tenure review. Post-tenure review is a process for periodic peer evaluation of faculty performance that provides an opportunity for a long-term assessment of a faculty member’s accomplishments and future directions in the areas of teaching/advising, scholarship, and service.

Post-tenure review must be conducted in a manner that respects the rights of faculty members involved, including academic freedom, tenure, and due process. In addition, all those involved in the evaluation process must recognize that it is a confidential personnel matter and take appropriate steps to protect confidentiality.

Period for Review

Faculty members will be reviewed once every seven years following the receipt of tenure with the review occurring in the unit(s) that conducts their annual evaluation. Post-tenure review covers the seven-year period leading up to the review, including the six prior annual evaluation letters and activities since the last annual evaluation. The cycle is restarted if a faculty member is evaluated for promotion or is awarded a distinguished professorship.  The time period when a faculty member is on medical or familial leave or that would otherwise be excluded when computing time in rank does not count toward this period. In addition, time serving as department chair, program director, dean or associate dean, or other administrative position subject to administrative review is excluded. The review may be postponed if it falls in a year when the faculty member is on leave. Faculty members on phased retirement or whose retirement date has been approved by the university will be exempt from review under this policy. The dean of the College will notify faculty members scheduled for post-tenure review no later than March 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 Film and Media Studies has defined its standards and expectations for teaching/advising, scholarship, and service in its annual evaluation procedures. The expectations for post-tenure review are consistent with these standards, with overall productivity commensurate to the seven-year period under review. The following specific criteria shall apply for purposes of post-tenure review.

Criteria for Meeting Expectations in Teaching/Advising

An assessment of teaching and peer evaluations must demonstrate that a faculty member’s teaching, to an adequate or greater extent, reflects knowledge of his/her field and the recent developments therein, and that the faculty member 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 articulate writers and media makers. 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, and reflection about pedagogy.

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 are further examples of meeting teaching/advising expectations.

Faculty members should also demonstrate seniority by advising more graduate students than in previous years; they must have taught courses or given lectures at other universities, both nationally or internationally.

Criteria for Meeting Expectations in Scholarship and Creative Activity

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 and tenure. Research may include any of a wide variety of activities depending upon the field of specialization and the interests of the faculty member. It is expected that each faculty member will pursue research or professional activities appropriate to his or her field of specialization and will achieve significant national recognition among his or her peers in one or more such fields of activity.

To achieve a comprehensive evaluation, the committee will evaluate research/creative work performance in the following three areas, ranked in order of importance:

Results of research/creative work: Published books from scholarly presses, adjudicated films, videos, screenplays, chapters and articles, edited media compilations (audio and video), research reports, exhibits, peer-reviewed electronic/digital publications, annotated databases, special lectures or colloquia, papers, films, or videos presented at professional meetings or film festivals. Although peer-reviewed books and articles are weighted most heavily, substantial research/creative work contributions often appear in other outlets. In such cases, an explanation of the nature and value of the contribution should be submitted.

Research/creative work in progress: Archival work; sponsored research; grant, contract, or fellowship applications submitted; and manuscripts, films, or videos in progress.

Contribution of research/creative work to the university, profession, and beyond: Financial support for students, invited lectures, media interviews, press coverage, consulting in areas of research/creative work and curricular expertise, and citations of scholarly work, integration of research/creative work with teaching are among the ways research/creative work contribution is determined.

Criteria for Meeting Expectations in Service

The record 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, national, or international communities. Departmental service is required of all faculty members including, but not limited to, attendance at faculty and department meetings as well as participation on department committees. Greater amounts of service at the School, College, and University levels, in national or international professional organizations and the larger communities are further examples of meeting expectations in service.

Relation to the Annual Evaluation

A unit’s post-tenure review policy relates to the Faculty Evaluation Policy and annual evaluations in the following manner:

The Department of Film and Media Studies has elected to combine the post-tenure review with the annual evaluation given that the post-tenure review is conducted by the same committee that conducts annual evaluations. Thus, the post-tenure review and annual evaluation are combined into a single process. The committee will recommend outcomes in accordance with the unit’s policy.

The committee report will be considered as part of the annual evaluation process and 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

The post-tenure review is conducted by the Faculty Evaluation Committee, which shall be selected as described in the Faculty Evaluation Plan for the Department of Film and Media Studies 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 and a list of additional 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.

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/advising, 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 Film and Media Studies, the College, and the University; (2) a faculty member’s activities vary over time according to his or her strengths, interests, and career path; and (3) innovative work may take time to reach fruition and may sometimes fail.

Using the Unit Committee Report, the committee will prepare a written report summarizing its evaluation. The report should provide a narrative description of the faculty member’s activities, an explanation of the committee’s ratings, and recommendations or suggestions for acknowledgement of contributions and future development of the faculty member. The committee will provide a copy of the report to the faculty member, who may submit a written response for inclusion in the post-tenure review file before it is forwarded to the chair.

Consideration by the Chair

The committee’s report (along with any faculty response) will be provided to the chair. 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. Using the Chair/Director Evaluation Summary, 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. Post-tenure review files are due in the College Dean’s Office by no later than noon, on the second Friday in March. The dean will consider the report and using the Dean’s Evaluation Summary, express his or her agreement or disagreement in the same manner as the 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 Film and Media Studies 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.

Contact: 

Film & Media Studies Department
Oldfather Studios
1621 W. 9th St
Lawrence, KS 66044
Film@ku.edu

Department Chairperson
785-864-1340

Approved by: 
Film & Media Studies Department Faculty
Approved on: 
Tuesday, April 8, 2014
Effective on: 
Tuesday, April 8, 2014
Review Cycle: 
Annual (As Needed)
Keywords: 
Post-tenure Review, Post Tenure, Faculty Evaluation, Seven-year review, Film & Media Studies, Film and Media, FMS, PTR, PtR
Review, Approval & Change History: 

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.”

08/28/2015: 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.

04/22/2014: Reviewed and accepted by the College of Liberal Arts & Sciences Dean’s Office

04/08/2014: Approved by Film & Media Studies Department Faculty vote.

School/College Policy Categories: 
Additional Policies

Can't Find What You're Looking For?
Policy Library Search
KU Today
One of 34 U.S. public institutions in the prestigious Association of American Universities
44 nationally ranked graduate programs.
—U.S. News & World Report
Top 50 nationwide for size of library collection.
—ALA
23rd nationwide for service to veterans —"Best for Vets," Military Times