Art History Guidelines
The criteria for promotion and tenure are published in the Faculty Handbook. The purpose of these Departmental Guidelines is to provide additional information to candidates standing for reappointment, tenure and promotion, and to faculty, administrators and outside readers who are involved in evaluating the candidate’s performance.
Reappointment Prior to Tenure
Candidates for reappointment prior to tenure should demonstrate clear evidence of progress toward the standards for tenure outlined in the next section, especially regarding teaching and scholarship.
For service, after the first year of teaching, candidates should have regularly participated in academic advising and in Departmental governance and events. Although the Department does not emphasize service as a criterion for reappointment, during the second and third year, the candidate should undertake a modest role in service obligations they regard as especially pertinent or compelling. We recognize that there are forms of service outside of shared governance, such as service to the profession or discipline, interdisciplinary programs, student requests for research support, and so on.
Tenure and Promotion to the Rank of Associate Professor
Teaching
Standards for Teaching
Candidates for promotion and tenure are required to demonstrate a successful record of teaching. A poor record of teaching cannot be offset by strong scholarship or community service. The Faculty Handbook cites three criteria for successful teaching: “commitment to teaching; knowledge and mastery of the discipline; the ability to communicate with, stimulate, and evaluate students.”
In the view of the Art History Department, the above criteria are demonstrated through the practices listed below. When we refer to ‘candidate materials’, we mean the personal statement and sample course materials submitted at the time of review; when we refer to ‘student responses and reports’, we refer to student evaluations and solicited student letters.
- Teaching and developing courses that appeal to and challenge a broad range of students, and that fulfill one or more of the department’s SLOs.
Evidence: Is there thought, clarity, and reflection in teaching across levels as expressed in the candidate’s materials? Do course documents reflect departmental and College SLOs? Do course documents clearly describe learning goals and expectations? Are courses reasonably well enrolled with students from across the College? - Using pedagogical approaches that stimulate and challenge our students.
Evidence: Do the candidate’s materials and course documents show thought, reflection, and intent in pedagogical practices? What do peer observations report about the degree and nature of student engagement in class? What do students report about their degree of interest and engagement? - Keeping current with developments in the field.
Evidence: Do the candidate’s materials reflect thought in responding to new bodies of information and methods in the field? Do course documents reflect recent trends in the field? - Fostering an inclusive learning environment.
Evidence: Does the candidate discuss inclusive pedagogy in the personal statement? Do course documents show a variety of approaches and assignments?
Do peers report that the candidate engaged with students’ contributions in the course? What do students report about the learning environment? - Provide reasonable access to students outside of class.
Evidence: This may include the academic mentoring of individual students, intellectual engagement with Art History concentrators and minors, as well as students in other programs which a candidate’s courses serve. Evidence may be seen in the candidate’s materials and student feedback. We note, however, that students may make significantly higher demands for assistance from women, faculty of color, and those from other marginalized groups. We emphasize the word “reasonable” here to indicate that not every request for assistance outside of class need be accommodated.
Applicability of criteria for evaluating teaching to those who will not be evaluated for tenure
The teaching of all faculty in non-tenurable positions will be evaluated with the same criteria as untenured faculty in tenure-track positions.
Applicability of criteria for evaluating teaching to those who will stand for promotion to the rank of Professor
The teaching of faculty standing for promotion to Professor will be evaluated with the same criteria as those described above for candidates standing for tenure.
Policy on the Peer Review of Teaching
Peer review of teaching will include:
- A pre-observation consultation in which subjects such as session goals, course goals, pedagogical approaches, and assignments are discussed;
- Review of available course materials to contextualize the session;
- A classroom observation of one or two class sessions, depending on the preferences of the observed faculty member;
- A post-observation meeting;
- Written documentation of the review using the CET-developed form (see PDF for the form). The written report will be shared with the person reviewed before it is submitted to the chair of the department and/or ad hoc committee, whichever applies to the candidate at the time of the review, no later than the end of the semester in which the review occurred.
Normally, for faculty who do not have ad hoc tenure/promotion committees, the department chair will coordinate peer review assignments at the beginning of each semester, consulting with faculty involved. For faculty with ad hoc tenure/promotion committees, the ad hoc committee chair will coordinate peer review assignments, consulting with the faculty involved. The reviewer will take responsibility for scheduling on a mutually convenient date, and the department or ad hoc committee chair will ensure that the review occurs by the end of the semester.
Faculty in their first semester of teaching will be reviewed for formative purposes only; no written documentation of the first semester review will be generated.
Each faculty member will be observed no more than once per semester, and each classroom observation will be conducted by one colleague only.
All voting members of each faculty member’s Tenure & Promotion committee will have firsthand knowledge of teaching through this peer review process before voting on tenure or promotion. Because we are a small department, voting members should normally visit two different courses, over a period of a few years.
The department will submit the written documentation of review with tenure, reappointment, and promotion letters.
Faculty in non-tenurable positions will be reviewed using the same processes as those in tenure lines. Continuing Lecturers and Senior Lecturers will undergo summative peer review once every three years but may request formative or written summative reviews more frequently. Visiting faculty on a one-year contract will be reviewed for formative purposes in their first semester, but may request a written, summative evaluation in either semester. Visiting faculty in multi-year contracts will be reviewed on the same schedule as tenure-track faculty.
In addition, understanding the value of peer observation at all career levels, the Art History department encourages faculty of all ranks to sit in on classes taught by their peers and senior colleagues as part of their growth as teachers.
View the classroom observation report (PDF)
Scholarship
Expectations for Scholarship
The members of the Art History faculty are strongly committed to the ideal of outstanding teacher-scholars and recognize the critical value of active research in their professional lives. Candidates for promotion and tenure are expected to demonstrate an established record of scholarly publication.
Teaching and service alone, no matter how outstanding, are not sufficient grounds for promotion and tenure.
In evaluating eligibility for tenure and promotion, the Art History Department looks for evidence of productive and ongoing engagement with the central concerns of the discipline as well as an individual’s subfield. The Art History Department expects candidates for tenure to have built a portfolio of scholarly publications and to have developed a clear agenda for future research projects.
In Art History, peer review of publications is the clearest measure of quality. Therefore, in evaluating scholarly achievement, the Art History Department pays particular attention to books, articles published in peer-reviewed journals, substantive peer-reviewed essays in significant museum or exhibition catalogues, and peer-reviewed essays in edited volumes or conference proceedings.
The Art History Department also recognizes the scholarly significance of substantive entries in edited print or online reference works such as Oxford Online and Khan Academy, book reviews, papers presented at professional conferences, articles in non-refereed journals, invited lectures, digital scholarship, and curating exhibitions. However, publications that have not gone through the peer-review process by themselves normally would not constitute a substantial record of scholarly accomplishment.
The Department considers work that is complete and in press equal to work already published; completed work under review by a publisher will also be taken into consideration by the Department.
Assessment of Scholarship
The most important criterion for evaluating the candidate’s record of publication and research is quality as assessed by the voting members of the Department and the outside evaluators who are expert in the candidate’s field. It may be the case that a few excellent publications would be evaluated more highly than a greater number of less significant publications.
Service
Service to the Department, the College and the Community
The Faculty Handbook advises that service contributions are vital to Hamilton as a residential college and, therefore, are a third important criterion for tenure. Service may take a variety of forms. After the first year of teaching the candidate is expected to serve as an academic advisor and to contribute to the intellectual growth and administrative efficiency of the Department. Participation in Faculty governance is a normal part of each faculty member’s responsibilities at the College, especially in order to prepare them for fuller participation after tenure. Therefore, following reappointment, a candidate for tenure is expected to participate in at least one moderately demanding College committee. Service to the profession is also valuable, such as involvement in regional or national organizations, serving as an editor or referee for professional journals, or serving as a consultant to other Colleges. The Art History Department also values involvement in local or regional community organizations.
Assessment of Service
While all candidates for tenure are expected to be active members of the Department and the College community, teaching and scholarship are the most important criteria for tenure. Service will not outweigh poor or problematic performance in either of the other two criteria. Service will be evaluated by the candidate’s record of participation and from comments solicited from colleagues in a position to evaluate the candidate’s contributions to the Department, College, profession, or the regional/local community, whichever is appropriate.
Promotion to the Rank of Professor
The Department expects those promoted to the rank of Professor to bring distinction to the Department and to the College in terms of teaching, scholarship, and service. While teaching and scholarship are the most important criteria for promotion to the rank of Professor, the Department also expects the candidate to demonstrate continuing accomplishment in terms of service.
Teaching
In addition to demonstrating the Standards for Teaching articulated above, a distinguished record of teaching that is required for promotion to Professor will also exhibit evidence that the faculty member has engaged in reflective and iterative growth. New emphases in teaching and experimentation in the classroom are valued. Evidence of this will be sought in self-evaluation which reports on this growth, in the development of new courses or the revisions of existing ones, or in other faculty development activities voluntarily undertaken by the individual. The teaching of those who have been promoted to Professor will also be evaluated with this additional criterion.
Expectations for Scholarship
Full professors are expected to be recognized scholars in their sub-field. The Department expects that candidates for promotion to the rank of Professor will have produced additional significant scholarship in an amount at least equivalent to that required for tenure and promotion to the rank of Associate Professor. Again, the Department expects scholarly achievement in terms of an expanding portfolio of peer-reviewed publications and a clear plan for future scholarly research indicating a continued lively and creative engagement with the field, both personally and professionally. Evidence of a candidate’s recognition among peers in the field may be measured by reviews of their scholarly writings and contributions to conferences, and by their participation in professional reviews for major research grants or for promotion and tenure of candidates at peer institutions.
Assessment
The most important criterion for evaluating the candidate’s record of publication and research is quality as assessed by the voting members of the Department and the outside evaluators who are expert in the candidate’s field.
Service
Service to the Department, the College and the Community
Candidates for promotion to the rank of Professor are expected to be leaders in the College and/or professional community. They are expected to serve as academic advisors to students and to contribute to the intellectual growth and administrative efficiency of the Department. The candidate may demonstrate service to the College by serving on College committees, the mentorship of colleagues, and participation in other activities that contribute to the educational goals and academic affairs of the College. Service to the profession may involve participation in regional or national organizations, serving as an editor or referee for professional journals, or serving as a consultant to other Colleges. The Art History Department also values involvement in local or regional community organizations.
Assessment of Service
While all candidates for promotion to the rank of Professor are expected to be active members of the Department and the College community, service is a less important criterion for tenure and promotion than either teaching or scholarship. Service will be evaluated by the candidate’s record of participation and from comments solicited from colleagues in a position to evaluate the candidate’s contributions to the Department, College, profession, or the regional/local community.
Approved by COA on 12/12/23
