School of Journalism, Post-tenure Review Criteria and Procedures

General Principles

In accordance with Board of Regents requirements, Article 7, section 4 of the Faculty Senate Rules and Regulations, and the University Policy on Post-­‐tenure Review, the School of Journalism and Mass Communications, hereafter referred to as the School, 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, 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

Post-­‐tenure review is conducted on a seven-­‐year cycle and covers the period since the last comprehensive review, which may be consideration for promotion and/or tenure, the award of a distinguished professorship, or a previous post-­‐tenure review. Some years may be excluded from the period 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 Dean of the School will notify faculty members scheduled for post-­‐tenure review no later than March 15 in the spring semester preceding the academic year of review.

Expectations

All tenured faculty members must meet academic responsibilities in the areas of teaching, scholarship and service. Unless otherwise specified by the job description or differential allocation of effort, the ordinary allocation of effort is 40% teaching, 40% scholarship and 20% service.

The School has defined its standards and expectations for teaching, scholarship and service in its Promotion and Tenure Standards and Procedures and in its Faculty Evaluation Plan. The expectations for post-­‐tenure review are consistent with these standards, with overall productivity commensurate with the period under review. The following specific criteria shall apply for purposes of post-­‐tenure review.

Criteria for Meeting Expectations in Teaching

The School of Journalism and Mass Communications believes teaching is a primary function of the University, which strives to provide an outstanding education for its students. The School values deep knowledge within a field and the ability of a teacher to convey that understanding in clear and engaging ways. In accordance with University guidelines, the School’s Teaching Standard provides the criteria for assessing how a faculty member’s teaching should result in periodic, measurable accomplishment.

• Command of the subject matter
• Ability to communicate effectively in the classroom
• Demonstrated commitment to student learning
• Involvement in providing advice and support for students outside the classroom

These standards are also described in the School’s Faculty Evaluation Plan.

Criteria for Meeting Expectations in Scholarship

The School of Journalism and Mass Communications believes academic research and creative activity are essential components of the University’s mission as a center of learning. The School expects its tenured and tenure-­‐track faculty to demonstrate expertise in their fields by their academic research or creative achievement, or both. The expectation is that the faculty member will produce intellectual products of both breadth and depth that indicate a sustained and sustainable program of activity.

The evaluation of academic research and creative activity requires an understanding of the expectations within specific disciplines and the professional fields of journalism. The School considers academic research/creative activity within each field to encompass all products that are accepted according to professional standards and that provide tangible evidence of academic or creative effort advancing the discipline. The School recognizes that although the nature of scholarship varies by discipline, the University adheres to high standards for faculty scholarship in all disciplines.

Academic and /or creative work may include, but is not be limited to, (1) articles or essays published in refereed academic journals; (2) books, especially those from university presses and other outlets with a peer review or strong editing process; (3) papers or speeches delivered at conferences, conventions and similar gatherings; (4) book chapters; (5) high-quality professional work published in or aired on media outlets with significant reach, or in museums and galleries; (6) creation and development of websites, blogs and similar digital works that develop an independent following or that demonstrate innovative approaches; (7) a leadership role in the creative activities of professional organizations.

The School recognizes that such projects can span years from the proposal for funding to the publication of research findings.

Productivity in academic research and creative activity also includes the acquisition of significant external and internal grants.

The weight accorded these materials will be measured by their contribution to the intellectual community, their adherence to professional standards, the quality of execution and the distinction they may bring to the School and University.

Evaluation criteria for academic research may include:

• Reputation and appropriateness of the journal or the academic press
• Review method, whether blind and/or peer-­‐reviewed
• Audience (in a specific field or interdisciplinary) and scope (national, international)
• Contribution to the body of knowledge
• Extent of participation in a publication, e.g. whether lead, co-­‐author or part of an interdisciplinary research team
• Sustained work within the candidate’s area(s) of expertise or focus
• A level of accomplishment indicating a promising trajectory for future work
• Success in obtaining external funding
• Recognition as evidenced by citations, references, testimonials or awards
• Funding source, whether internal (within the School/University) or external
• Outcome, such as effect on industry practice, government policy, law and codes, or public opinion

Evaluation criteria for creative activity may include:

• Reputation of venue, whether in respected journalism venues (newspapers, magazines, television, radio, websites) or in media serving journalism professionals, or in museums or galleries
• Review method, whether it was judged and selected by respected
• professionals
• Audience: significance in size and exposure (international, national or regional) or composition (practitioners in the profession)
• Impact, whether it resulted in real-­‐world outcomes or affected public opinion, industry practice, government policy or programs, or law and code
• changes
• Funding source, whether internal (within the School/University) or external
• Depth and originality, whether it reflects leadership, problem-­‐solving or new ways of thinking within the field
• Entrepreneurship and innovation, whether it takes risks to reach out to new
• audiences or to existing audiences in new ways

The quality and quantity of productivity should be such that the scholar has achieved a regional, national and/or international reputation.

These standards are also described in the School’s Faculty Evaluation Plan.

Criteria for Meeting Expectations in Service

The School of Journalism and Mass Communications believes service is an essential part of being a good citizen and that all faculty members contribute to the University’s performance of its larger mission. The nature of service depends on individual faculty members’ allocation of effort and on their interests and abilities. Service may include:

• Professional service through activity in academic and media organizations
• Leadership of an academic or professional organization, such as chairing a division
• School and University committees, work groups and assignments
• Professionally related service outside the University (local, state, regional)
• Professional or scholarly publications about service

Criteria that could significantly enhance the ranking of service include:

• Honors or awards for professional service
• The nature and time commitment of the service

Administrative assignments and leadership positions in the School, University and professional and academic organizations require a commitment that exceeds typical service. Examples of administrative assignments include:

• Heading one of the School’s academic tracks
• Chairing a major School or University committee, such as the School Promotion and Tenure Committee
• Managing a national contest

The record of service should demonstrate an ongoing pattern of service reflecting contributions to the University at one or more levels, to the discipline or profession, and/or to the local, state, national or international communities.

These standards are also described in the School’s Faculty Evaluation Plan.

Review Committee

Post-­‐tenure review is conducted by the Post-­‐tenure Review Committee, which shall consist of three tenured faculty members: the chair of the Promotion and Tenure Committee and two members to be appointed by the School Promotion and Tenure Committee.

No person may serve on the committee if his or her spouse or partner is scheduled for review. 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 School Promotion and Tenure Committee will name a replacement.

Preparation of the File

Review will be conducted on the basis of a file that documents a faculty member’s teaching, scholarship and service. In contrast to evaluation for promotion and tenure, outside reviews of scholarship, copies of publications and copies of original student evaluations are not required.

The faculty member under review should provide a brief narrative statement of his or her accomplishments in teaching, 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 should submit a current curriculum vitae and a list of additional activities not covered on the curriculum vitae. The Dean will furnish copies of the faculty member’s annual evaluations for the 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, scholarship and service. Applying the expectations defined above, the committee will determine whether the faculty member’s performance in each area, as well as 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 School and the University; (2) a faculty member’s activities vary over time according to his or her strengths, interests and career path; and (3) innovative work may take time to reach fruition and may sometimes fail.

The committee will prepare a written report summarizing its evaluation. 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 Dean.

Consideration by the Dean

The committee’s report (along with any faculty response) will be provided to 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 the 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 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 committee, the faculty member may submit a written response.

The Dean will forward a summary of post-­‐tenure review outcomes and copies of the files to the Provost.

Relation to Annual Evaluations

The post-­‐tenure review will provide the basis for the committee to conduct the annual evaluation in the year it is conducted. The committee will recommend outcomes in accordance with that policy.

Appeals

If a disagreement between the committee and the Dean cannot be resolved or if the faculty member wishes to appeal an evaluation of “fails to meet expectations,” the matter will be handled as an appeal under the Faculty Evaluation Plan.