Eskenazi School Faculty Governance

1. Our Mission:

We are the nexus for art, architecture, design, and merchandising at Indiana’s flagship university, advancing research, creative activity, and education in our state and beyond. As a transdisciplinary community of ethical leaders, we embrace the liberal arts, encourage risk-taking, inspire innovation, and fuel creativity in a complex world.

2. Our Vision:

The Eskenazi School shapes the future of creativity through transformational and interdisciplinary teaching, research, and engagement built upon an inclusive and liberal arts approach to art, architecture, design, and merchandising.

3. Our Values:

• Heritage and Innovation
• Creative Risk-Taking
• Disciplinary Excellence
• Interdisciplinary Collaboration
• Inclusion and Advocacy
• Ethical Practice and Sustainability

1. Definitions of Faculty

1.1 In the Eskenazi School of Art, Architecture + Design, the expected terminal degree for faculty who are primarily involved in Studio Instruction for both undergraduate and graduate students is the Master of Fine Arts (MFA), the M.Arch, M.Des, or in some cases Ph.D. degree. Faculty whose primary responsibilities involve teaching undergraduates in the areas of Merchandising are expected to hold a master’s degree, and those teaching graduate students are expected to hold a doctorate degree. Faculty not holding such degrees may present evidence of “tested experience” as constituting the equivalent of these degrees as described by the Higher Learning Commission and summarized in the Appendices to this document (See Appendix 5).

1.2 The Eskenazi School of Art, Architecture + Design (SoAAD) supports the IUB governance policy that at least 60% of the full-time, permanent faculty appointments are tenured/tenure-track appointments and that no more than 40% of the full-time, permanent faculty appointments are non-tenure track appointments.

1.3 It is the policy of Indiana University to staff its regular instructional program with tenure-track faculty to the maximum extent feasible. The pedagogical model embraced by SoAAD calls for the distinctive perspective, innovation, and competitive advantage provided by visiting artists, designers, practitioners, and executives. Studio based instruction, labs, and discussion groups require a greater than average level of instructional support and necessitate the use of visitors, adjunct faculty, and associate instructors. The resulting balance of all SoAAD credit hours taught by combined faculty is expected to fluctuate across semesters. The balance of credit hours taught is often 45% tenure-track faculty instruction with 55% non-tenure-track faculty instruction.

1.4 All members of the faculty and professional staff, including emeritus, visiting and adjunct faculty members, and lecturers, shall be eligible to attend and participate in meetings of the faculty. Meetings of the faculty may be called by the Dean or by request of ten or more members of the faculty and/or professional staff.

1.5 Voting core faculty consists of faculty members with at least 0.5 FTE in the Eskenazi School of Art, Architecture + Design, including Tenure Track, Lecturers, Academic Specialists, Senior Lecturers, Teaching Professors, who are eligible to vote on all matters related to the Eskenazi School of Art, Architecture + Design except those pertaining to the tenure and promotion of professorial-line faculty as proscribed by University policy. Lecturer, Senior Lecturer, Teaching Professor, and Academic Specialist faculty may vote on all matters related to teaching and service, including hiring.

1.6 Visiting faculty are welcome to participate in faculty discussions, but are not eligible to vote.

1.7 Partial FTE faculty consists of faculty members with less than 0.5 FTE in the School; these faculty members will not be afforded voting rights in the Eskenazi School of Art, Architecture + Design.

1.8 Affiliated faculty consists of faculty members with formalized affiliation but no FTE in the Eskenazi School of Art, Architecture + Design.

1.9 Standard course load for the Eskenazi School of Art, Architecture + Design is:

• Tenure-line Faculty: 2/2 baseline; 2/1 or 1/2 for faculty doing extraordinary service or special projects.
• Lecturers/Senior Lecturers: 3/3 baseline; 3/2 or 2/3 for faculty teaching a majority of studio courses; 3/2 or 2/3 for faculty doing extraordinary service or special projects.
• Visitors: 3/2 or 2/3 for Visiting Assistant Professors (with terminal degree); 3/3 for Visiting Lecturer (without terminal degree); 3/2 or 2/3 for Visiting Lecturer teaching a majority of studio courses.
• All course loads are subject to Dean and University approval.

2. Founding Faculty Members

The School’s founding faculty members are limited to faculty from the departments of Apparel Merchandising and Interior Design (AMID) and Studio Art (FINS). These faculty members chose to join the Eskenazi School of Art, Architecture + Design with either full or partial FTE. All faculty appointments were finally approved from the Vice Provost for Faculty and Academic Affairs, the College Policy Committee, the Executive Dean of the College, and the Faculty Advisory Board and Dean of the Eskenazi School of Art, Architecture + Design. 

3. Emeriti Faculty Members

Upon retirement many faculty remain active in their research and/or projects that benefit the University and School. These faculty can continue to be valuable role models and mentors for their colleagues when they contribute to the intellectual and creative life of the community. The guidelines for Emeriti faculty, as described in Appendix 17, are in alignment with University policy. If there is a conflict then University/campus policy supersedes the School’s policy.

4. Transfer of FTE

As described in the Appendices, the process for FTE transfer for faculty seeking standing in the School will follow University and College procedures. All FTE transfers will require approval from the Vice Provost for Faculty and Academic Affairs, the College Policy Committee, the Executive Dean, and the Dean of the Eskenazi School of Art, Architecture + Design.

5. School Structure: Areas

The Eskenazi School of Art, Architecture + Design is an integrated unit with no department-like structure. The Eskenazi School of Art, Architecture + Design Dean’s office oversees the School’s budgetary, curricular, and all external functions. Led by coordinators, fifteen areas support the day-to-day operations in studios and classroom. These areas include Architecture, Ceramics, Comprehensive Design, Digital Art, Fashion Design, Graphic Design, Interior Design, Merchandising, Metalsmithing and Jewelry Design, Painting, Photography, Printmaking, Sculpture, Textiles, and the Creative Core. This number may change over time to reflect changing or expanding disciplinary boundaries. The functions of the coordinators of these areas are enumerated below. As Architecture is the only area that is exclusively at the graduate level, the Director for Graduate Studies for the M.Arch. will perform functions equivalent to an area coordinator for Architecture.

6. Voting

6.1 Area Voting: Voting on matters that pertain to a specific area (as defined by area coordinators) is limited to faculty members who regularly teach courses in that area (i.e., at least two courses annually on average). Lecturers, Senior Lecturers, and Teaching Professors may vote on all matters affecting an area. Visiting faculty are welcome to participate in discussing curricular matters in the areas in which they work and may serve on Eskenazi School of Art, Architecture + Design undergraduate and graduate committees described below.

6.2 Participation in University and campus faculty governance is governed by the Constitution of the faculty of Indiana University and the faculty constitutions of each campus. University policy reserves at least 60% of voting weight to tenure-line faculty.

6.3 Voting for School-Wide Committees: The Eskenazi School of Art, Architecture + Design has two school-wide committees, the membership of which is the result of election: the Faculty Advisory Board (FAB) and the Promotion and Tenure Committee (P&T). Academic Specialists, Lecturers, Senior Lecturers, Teaching Professors, and all tenured and tenure-track faculty members may vote to elect FAB committee members. Only tenure-line faculty may vote to elect P&T committee members; however, all Lecturers, Senior Lecturers, Teaching Professors, and all tenured and tenure-track faculty members may vote to elect the Senior Lecturers or Teaching Professors added to the P&T committee for the purposes of considering promotion of Lecturers to Senior Lecturers and Teaching Professors. The two elected committees, FAB and P&T, will have one representative from each of the areas listed below. The functions of these committees are described below.

The Faculty Advisory Board consists of five members, at least three of whom must be tenured or tenure-track members of the faculty, and 1 member from each of the groups below. The FAB represents the faculty, is the school’s policy committee, and ensures shared governance between the faculty and administration.

GROUP A: Painting, Sculpture, Photography, Digital Art, Printmaking

GROUP B: Ceramics, Metalsmithing and Jewelry Design, Textiles, Creative Core

GROUP C: Interior Design, Comprehensive Design, Fashion Design, Graphic Design

GROUP D: Merchandising

GROUP E: Architecture

The Promotion and Tenure Committee must include two faculty members at the rank of full professor and 1 member from each of these five groups. After the professorial membership is determined, the next three highest vote getters will be appointed. Further details about membership in specific cases are provided later in this document.

7. Partial FTE Faculty (<.5)

Faculty members with < .5 FTE in Eskenazi School of Art, Architecture + Design are designated as non-voting faculty for School-wide votes. With the approval of the Dean, the policies of the faculty group will determine the rights, privileges, and responsibilities of the partial FTE faculty member within that unit.

8. Relationship of Affiliated Faculty

Any IU faculty member is welcome to seek affiliation with Eskenazi School of Art, Architecture + Design by petitioning the School’s Faculty Advisory Board, which may request the submission of relevant materials (c.v., examples creative or scholarly work, and so on). With the input of School faculty familiar with the petitioner’s area(s) of expertise, the Faculty Advisory Board may grant or deny the request. The affiliate’s department chair or appropriate administrator must be made aware of and endorse any affiliative relationship that is established.

9. Revision of this Document

This document can be amended by a two-thirds affirmative vote of the Faculty Advisory Board, and the revised document will be submitted for ratification to those persons who hold full FTE in the School for a simple yes/no vote. A simple majority of votes will determine the outcome. Should a tie occur, the amendment will fail, and the present document will remain unrevised. If the amendment is accepted, the revised document will be made available to all Eskenazi School of Art, Architecture + Design faculty in a timely manner. This document will appear on the College of Arts and Sciences website for IU access and will be available through internal communication within the Eskenazi School of Art, Architecture + Design. A mandatory review of this document will occur every three years in force to determine its effectiveness.

All Eskenazi School of Art, Architecture + Design administrators must be core members of the School. The Dean, Associate Dean, and Director of Graduate Studies must be tenured with the Dean holding the rank of full professor. In unusual circumstances, the Dean may be allowed to appoint an administrator from a unit outside the School on a short-term basis. The Leadership Team will be composed of the Dean, Associate Dean, Executive Director of Academics, DUS, DGS (MFA/MS), DGS (M.Arch), DCC. This “team” will meet together on a regular basis (i.e.: once per month) to ensure support, collaboration, and cooperation between the different leadership roles.

Definitions of terms used in the descriptions below:

• Represent: Appointed to act or speak for the School and/or a portion of the School
• Support: Give assistance to, enable to function or act
• Connect: Bring together or into contact so a link is established
• Manage: Be responsible for supervising and decision making, accountable for

1. DEAN

Description:

• Appointed by the Provost
• 100% administrative appointment
• 12-month appointment
• Occasional teaching when possible/appropriate
• Tenured full professor with full-time FTE in the School

Responsibilities:

Expand external reputation and connections

• Represent the school through involvement in national organizations
• Represent and connect the school with alumni and friends of the school
• Connect with regional, national, and international universities

Foster internal reputation and partnerships

• Connect with Executive Dean and serve at the pleasure of the Provost
• Connect with colleague Deans on initiatives and collaborations

Ensure success and sustainability

• Manage fundraising efforts with donors, foundations, corporations, etc., working with staff
• Manage and prepare the school budget
• Manage salary and merit decisions after consulting with FAB
• Manage and implement strategic planning
• Manage hiring of permanent faculty and Dean’s staff, approve all other hires
• Support recruitment, enrollment growth and development, working with staff
• Manage overall school structure and systems in consultation with Associate Dean, Executive Director of Academics, FAB, Leadership, and Area Coordinators

Partner with the faculty and staff

• Connect regularly (at least monthly) with the Faculty Advisory Board and at least twice a semester with the entire faculty and staff
• Connect regularly with school’s leadership team
• Connect with the Associate Dean, Executive Director of Academics, Leadership, and FAB on short-term and long-range planning
• Support the Dean’s staff to implement school initiatives
• Support the faculty on hiring recommended candidates
• Manage the final selection of outside reviewers in P&T cases, review dossiers and provide Dean’s letter for all faculty put forward for promotion or tenure

Authority over/accountable for:
Fundraising/development
Hiring of faculty and staff
School budget
Salary and merit decisions
Strategic planning
P&T review letters and decision about external reviewers
Annual letters for Full Professors and Assistant Professors
Overall school success and sustainability

2. ASSOCIATE DEAN

Description:

• Appointed by and directly reports to the Dean
• 100–75% administrative appointment (varies depending on circumstance)
• 12-month appointment, 2–3 year term renewable, stipend
• Zero to one course load per year (varies depending on circumstances)
• Tenured professor with full-time FTE in the School, Full Professor strongly preferred

Responsibilities:

Represent the School externally

• Represent the school at campus and College Associate Dean’s meetings
• Represent the school at regional and national events when the Dean is not available
• Support the Dean in development efforts
• Connect with professional organizations and accreditation bodies

Manage day-to-day operations external to the school

• Connect with College departments, other IUB schools and units (like the Art Museum and Arts and Humanities Council), and regional campuses to develop collaborations and initiatives
• Manage duties in the Dean’s absence
• Manage faculty meetings where hiring of faculty is discussed
• Ex-officio, non-voting member of FAB
• Manage nominations of awards and recommendation letters of support for faculty application for grants, awards, fellowships, etc.
• Support the overall school structure and systems in consultation with Dean, Executive Director of Academics, FAB, Leadership, and Area Coordinators
• Support and connect the Directors of centers, galleries and collections to facilitate collaboration
• Manage governance updates and revisions

Manage promotion and tenure processes

• Procedural/non-voting oversight of the Promotion and Tenure Committee (voting chair selected from within the elected committee)
• Manage faculty meetings where promotion and tenure are discussed
• Support candidate and mentor to select outside reviewers in promotion and tenure cases, with the approval of the Dean
• Support and mentor for promotion and tenure cases

Support research and creative activity

• Manage the Mentoring Program for all faculty going up for tenure and/or planning to come up for promotion
• Connect with the Executive Director of Academics on faculty development
• Support faculty and connect them to opportunities for enhancing research/creative activity for disciplines, as well as interdisciplinary opportunities.

Authority over/accountable for:
Dean’s duties in the Dean’s absence
School meetings where hiring is discussed or promotion and tenure are discussed
Award nominations and support letters for grants, awards, etc.
Revision of governance and policies
Mentoring process
Promotion and tenure process
Faculty development and research support
Annual letters for Associate Professors

3. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF ACADEMICS

Description:

• Appointed by and directly reports to the Dean
• 10-month appointment plus summer pay, 2–3 year term renewable, stipend
• 75%–50% administrative appointment (varies depending on circumstance)
• Tenured, Senior lecturer, or Teaching Professor with full-time FTE in the School

Responsibilities:

Manage day-to-day operations internal to the school

• Represent the school at College chairs/directors meetings
• Connect College policy changes/communications to the school
• Support search committees and staff in the hiring process for faculty
• Manage the Area Coordinators Committee and connects area coordinators and the Dean’s office
• First point of contact for Area Coordinators regarding day-to-day concern and operations
• Manage facilities issues, assignment of offices/studios, and other building concerns
• Support the faculty with assessment and accreditation
• Support with Recruitment and Admissions Coordinator where needed

Oversee and coordinate undergrad and graduate curriculum implementation and development

• Manage curriculum implementation, working with the DUS
• Support strategic vision of the curriculum and connection between degrees
• Ensure regular communication among the studio art degree (various areas)
• Connect and support the Directors of Graduate Studies, Director of Undergraduate Studies, and Director of Creative Core
• Connect the Graduate Affairs Council and the Undergraduate Curriculum

Committee to facilitate collaboration, especially related to curriculum

• Facilitate communication with undergraduate advisors and graduate coordinators
• Support the internal school areas to develop interdisciplinary curricula and initiatives and manage the proposal process and paperwork
• Manage remonstrance reports and encourage the areas to do so
• Manage the Director of Academic Support Services, DUS, DGS, and Area Coordinators to develop the schedule, faculty assignments, and classroom assignments

Recruit and hire temporary faculty

• Support the DUS, DCC, DGS, and Area Coordinators to recruit, hire, and mentor adjunct instructors and visiting instructors – final approval by the Dean

Support for student services

• Support the DUS with undergraduate grievance procedures and student complaints
• Support the DUS regarding issues of academic misconduct
• Support student organizations and other student representatives
• Manage letters of support for students when needed
• Represent the school at various student events

Authority over/accountable for:
Area Coordinators Committee
Day-to-day concerns of areas
Facilities issues
Assessment/accreditation
Remonstrance reports and questions
Scheduling, faculty assignments, classroom assignments
Support for students and student organizations
Annual review letters for Lecturers, Senior Lecturers, and Teaching Professors

4. DIRECTOR OF UNDERGRADUATE STUDIES

Description:

• Appointed by the Dean and reports to the Executive Director of Academics
• 10-month appointment plus summer pay, 2–3 year term renewable, stipend
• 1 course release per semester
• Tenured, Senior lecturer, or Teaching Professor with full-time FTE in the School

Responsibilities:

Provide Student Services

• Manage undergraduate grievance procedures and student complaints
• Connect with the College on issues of academic misconduct
• Connect with the Walters Center on internship and employmentopportunities
• Manage transfer credit issues for undergraduates
• Represent the school at undergraduate student events

Lead and coordinate undergraduate curriculum

• Manage/Chair the Undergraduate Curriculum Committee
• Manage the undergraduate course and program development process
• Connect/communicate College and University curriculum policies to the faculty
• Support review of the remonstrance reports
• Connect with EDA, Area Coordinators, and Director of Academic Support Services on the development of the schedule
• Connect with undergraduate advisors
• Manage the updating of the undergraduate bulletin

Recruit and hire temporary faculty

• Support EDA and Area Coordinators with the hiring of temporary faculty

Authority over/accountable for:
Undergraduate student grievance /complaints
Student academic misconduct
Approval of transfer credits
Undergraduate Curriculum Committee
Undergraduate course and program development
Updating of undergraduate bulletin

5. DIRECTOR OF GRADUATE STUDIES (MFA/MS)

Description:

• Appointed by the Dean and reports to the Executive Director of Academics
• 10-month appointment, 2–3 year term renewable, stipend, course release as appropriateTenured with full-time FTE in the School

Responsibilities:

Work with the Dean’s office to establish yearly goals and implementation timelines

• Lead initiatives as determined by the Dean, Associate Design, Executive Director of Academics and the Faculty Advisory Board
• Ensure alignment with the strategic and diversity plans
• Have an annual meeting to review the progress toward goals

Recruitment for the MFA and MS

• Work with the Graduate Recruitment Coordinator, Area Coordinators, and Director of Marketing and Communications on recruitment efforts

Work closely with the Graduate Coordinator

• Collaborate with the Graduate Coordinator’s supervisor, the Director of Academic Support Services
• Work with Graduate Coordinator to provide students with up-to-date information about policies, practices, resources, degree requirements, and expectations for progress
• Ensure that all students have a faculty mentor responsible for advising them
• Provide students with contacts for campus resources that promote health and wellness

Oversee the process of graduate applications and admissions

• Unify the application process and establish a timeline for the process and communications
• Manage, with the graduate coordinator, the acceptance process with the areas
• Oversee writing/revision of offer letters and other communications
• Manage enrollment for the MFA and MS degrees
• EDA approves SAA distribution working with the DGS and DCC

Responsible for leading/development of the annual Graduate Student Orientation

• Work with area coordinators to establish a yearly schedule/syllabus for orientation
• Share in the spring semester a clear timeline for orientation activities in the fall semester
• Invite guest speakers and appropriate tours to enlighten the students on research and teaching resources

Coordinate and lead Graduate Affairs Committee

• Chair a sub-committee of the Graduate Affairs Committee, a Fellowship and Awards Committee, and rank graduate student projects for annual awards and grants-in-aid.
• Communicate with outside entities for external awards (i.e. Arrowmont)
• Work with GAC to envision its work for the academic year

Lead and coordinate graduate curriculum for the MFA and MS

• Manage graduate course development process and new graduate programs/degrees
• Work with area coordinators and faculty committees in the School and graduate associate deans and directors in other Campus units to develop interdisciplinary curricular programs
• Work with the Executive Director of Academics, area coordinators and individual faculty to assign faculty to graduate courses where appropriate
• Review Remonstrance Reports
• Consider connections between the bachelors and masters degree programs

Coordinate Associate Instructors/Graduate Assistants

• In consultation with the School’s Executive Director of Academics and the Director of Undergraduate Studies, manage the recruitment, training, and assignment of Associate Instructors/Graduate Assistants for teaching or research

Work with the College and university staff

• Connect with College staff and offices on professional opportunities for graduate students
• Attend College DGS meetings
• Ensure that the School is complying with Campus and School policies regarding the compensation for Associate Instructors/Graduate Assistants and their working conditions
• Connect with the M.Arch Director of Graduate Studies
• Please see this link on the College intranet for more information: https://intranet.college.indiana.edu/documents/graduate/RolesOfDGS.pdf

Support the graduate students

• Manage the grievance procedure for graduate students
• Support and facilitation of the MFAO student organization. Act as the faculty liaison or ensure that one is in place
• Attend OIS workshops when appropriate to support international students

Authority over/accountable for:
Establish and implement yearly goals
Coordinate and lead the graduate student orientation program(s)
Management of graduate student handbook/guidlines
Recruitment/admissions/enrollment for the MFA/MS
Calling regular meetings of the GAC
Curriculum review on a regular basis
Represent and be a liaison for the MFA/MS
Work with the graduate coordinator, the Director of Academic Support Services, and the Executive Director of Academics to support grad students

6. DIRECTOR OF GRADUATE STUDIES (M.ARCH)

Description:

• Appointed by the Dean and reports to the Executive Director of Academics
• 10-month appointment, 2–3 year term renewable, stipend, course release as appropriate
• Tenured with full-time FTE in the School

Responsibilities:

Work with the Dean’s office to establish yearly goals and implementation timelines

• Ensure alignment with the strategic and diversity plans
• Have an annual meeting to review the progress toward goals

Recruitment for the M.Arch

• Work with the Graduate Recruitment Coordinator and Director of Marketing and Communications on recruitment efforts

Work closely with the Graduate Studies Administrative Assistant

• Collaborate with the Graduate Studies Administrative Assistant’s supervisor, Program Coordinator
• Work with Graduate Studies Administrative Assistant to provide students with up-to-date information about policies, practices, resources, degree requirements, and expectations for progress
• Ensure that all students have a faculty mentor responsible for advising them
• Provide students with contacts for resources that promote health and wellness

Oversee the process of graduate applications and admissions

• Manage, with the Graduate Studies Administrative Assistant the acceptance process
• Oversee writing/revision of offer letters and other communications
• Manage enrollment for the M.Arch degrees

Responsible for leading/development of the annual Graduate Student Orientation

• Work with area coordinators to establish a yearly schedule/syllabus for orientation
• Invite guest speakers and appropriate tours to enlighten the students on research and teaching resources

Lead and coordinate graduate curriculum for the M.Arch

• Manage graduate enrollment for the M.Arch
• Manage recruitment and admission processes for the M.Arch
• Manage graduate course development process
• Manage faculty assignment to graduate courses, work with DUS on possible assignment of faculty to other SoAAD courses
• Review Remonstrance Reports
• Performs the functions equivalent to an area coordinator for the M.Arch
• Consider connections between the bachelors and masters degree programs

Coordinate accreditation process

• Manage the NAAB accreditation process
• Work with the board of advisors

Work with the College and University staff

• Connect with College staff and office on professional opportunities for graduate students
• Attend college DGS meetings
• Ensure that the M.Arch is complying with Campus and School policies
• Connect with the MFA/MS Director of Graduate Studies
• Please see this link on the College intranet for more information: https://intranet.college.indiana.edu/documents/graduate/RolesOfDGS.pdf

Support the graduate students

• Manage the grievance procedure for graduate students
• Support and facilitate AIAS student organization. Act as the lisaison or ensure that one is in place
• Attend OIS workshops when appropriate to support international students

Authority over/accountable for:
Establish and implement yearly goals
Coordinate and lead the graduate student orientation program(s)
Management of graduate student handbook/guidelines
NAAB accreditation process
Recruitment/admissions/enrollment for the M.Arch
Calling regular area meetings
Curriculum review on a regular basis
Represent and be a liaison for the area
Area budget, including supplies and equipment
Work with the Graduate Students Administrative Assistant, the Director of
     Academic Support Services, and the Executive Director of Academics to support
     grad students

7. DIRECTOR OF CREATIVE CORE

Description:

• Appointed by the Dean and reports to the Executive Director of Academics
• 10-month appointment, 2–3 year term renewable, stipend, course release as appropriate
• Tenured, Senior Lecturer, or Teaching Professor with full-time FTE in the School

Responsibilities:

Lead and coordinate curriculum for the Creative Core

• Coordinate scheduling of the School’s introductory courses (A-courses)
• Review and update curriculum
• Lead and champion Creative Core vision

Assist in the scheduling and management of the Creative Core courses

With the Director of Undergraduate Studies, recruit, hire, and mentor adjunct faculty and visitors in consultation with the Executive Director of Academics

• Supervise, mentor, and evaluate AIs and others teaching Creative Core and “Pathway” courses
• Interview graduate students and manage the SAA appointments in Creative Core, and oversee the application and scheduling process
• Manage the students enrolled in the Creative Core courses
• Be assisted by a faculty member charged with structuring and delivering the activities contained in the Forum of Exchange
• Work with DGS on the teaching orientation for the SAAs

Authority over/accountable for:
Calling regular area meetings
Curriculum review on a regular basis
Represent and be a liaison for the area
Area budget, including supplies and equipment
Support people in the area (faculty, students, grad students)
Maintain and distribute Creative Core SAA handbook
Primary supervisor and contact for the area assistant (including during summer
     appointment)
Primary contact for associate instructors with summer appointments
Maintain an area archive of course materials, student work, area photographs
Oversee that usage of area equipment (i.e. 40 laptop computers, scanner)
Overseeing the general upkeep and repairs in classrooms
Work with the Fellowship Committee to identify area awards

8. AREA COORDINATORS

Description:

• Appointed by and directly reports to the Executive Director of Academics following recommendations from the area
• 10-month appointment, 2–3 year term renewable, stipend
• Full-time FTE in the School

Responsibilities:

Lead and coordinate strategic thinking about their area

• Connect with EDA regarding curricular support
• Manage self-study processes when they are appropriate
• Manage regular meetings of area faculty on such topics as curricula, scheduling, and related issues
• Disseminate information from area coordinator meetings to the area

Foster curricular relevancy and innovation

• Manage area’s curriculum review on an on-going basis
• Support updates to courses and overall program when appropriate
• Support discussions about curricular opportunities
• Connect with other disciplines for interdisciplinary courses/programs
• Support and encourage course assessment practices

Connect with the other areas in the school

• Represent the area in area coordinators committee meetings
• Represent the area to the Dean, Associate Dean, and Executive Director of Academics

Support school recruiting

• Support in the recruitment of student ambassadors to represent the area Support school advising practices
• Support advisors on matters such as student issues, scheduling, curriculum, transfers of credit, and degree requirements
• Manage the area equipment and budget
• Manage supply levels and the condition of necessary equipment and inform the Executive Director of Academics of maintenance, repair, supply and safety needs or concerns
• Manage area budget and participate in yearly reviews with the Dean’s Office

Support area faculty and students

• Support recruitment of adjunct faculty and visitors for the area, support hiring and mentoring
• Review teaching evaluations in the area
• Support area faculty in mentoring and organization of Undergraduate

Teaching Assistants and Undergraduate Teaching Interns

• Support/mentor area Student Academic Appointments
• Encouraged to write annual letters for Visitors, Adjuncts, and AIs

Authority over/accountable for:
Calling regular area meetings
Area self-study when appropriate, or support another faculty lead for self-study
Curriculum review on a regular basis
Represent and be a liaison for the area
Area budget, including supplies and equipment
Support people in the area (faculty, students, graduate students)

9. Directors of Centers, Collections, and Galleries

Description:

• Appointed by the Dean and reports to the Associate Dean
• 10-month appointment, 2–3 year term renewable, stipend
• Tenure-line or Non-tenure-line faculty

The centers/collections of the Eskenazi School of Art, Architecture + Design should work to advance the mission, vision, and values of the overall community, contributing to this strategic vision by aligning their goals and objectives to those of the school.

Responsibilities

• Create and sustain an advisory board to discuss direction and mission. This board can be composed of volunteers, faculty, donors, community members, stakeholders, aligned units, strategic partners, etc. They should assist with guiding the path of the center/collection.
• Create a yearly annual summary that documents past achievements and contributions to the research and teaching initiatives of the Eskenazi School.
• Develop an annual timeline for the implementation of center/collection goals.
• Ensure open communication and input from the school’s administration.
• Be accountable for decision-making and the achievement of goals.
• Assist with fundraising efforts to support the center/collection, in collaboration with the Director of Development.
• Have a regular presence in representing the center/collection to the Eskenazi School faculty, the College, the campus, and stakeholders.
• Manage accounts specific to the center/collection.
• Where appropriate, supervise graduate students and/or staff.
• Where appropriate, manage facilities and/or objects.

The following should be included in an annual report for each center/collection:

1. What were the primary goals for this unit?
2. What has been accomplished as regards each of these goals?
3. What are the unit’s major accomplishments since its last review/since establishment?
4. How has this unit contributed to the research and teaching missions of the Eskenazi School?
5. How has this unit contributed to the Eskenazi School’s reputation?
6. What are the unit’s plans for initiating new activities or establishing new goals?
7. What are the unit’s plans to continued operations?
8. How has the advisory board contributed to the mission/vision/direction of the unit?

For a new center, the following should be included in the initial proposal:

1. Administrative Structure
   1. management plan (director, membership, committees, reporting lines, etc.)
   2. space and facilities (existing/virtual/needed)
   3. staffing
   4. advisory board
2. Purpose and goals of the unit:
   1. details about what Eskenazi School need the unit fills
   2. details of what benefits the unit provides with respect to:
      1. research
      2. graduate student support/recruitment
      3. reputation/prestige
      4. grant/fellowship activity

3. Detailed five-year plan for unit including a plan for how the unit will achieve its goals and accountability benchmarks
4. Detailed five-year budget

Review of centers

Centers are reviewed in alignment with the College of Arts and Sciences. All College centers and institutes are subject to regular review. Most centers will be reviewed at five-year intervals following these guidelines (unless otherwise specified in the initial Memorandum of Understanding).

The timing and steps in the review are as follows:

1. The Associate Dean maintains a record of the centers and institutes that are due for review each academic year. The Associate Dean oversees the review and notifies the center (hereafter the “unit”) that it will be reviewed. At the time of notification, the Associate Dean will share the questions that units are typically asked to address in their reports, with the understanding that the review committee may add questions.
   
2. The Associate Dean collects information about the original goals and expectations for the unit, as well as information about the unit’s goals, mission, expectations that is available on the Web and in annual summaries.
3. The Associate Dean appoints a review committee based on recommendations from the unit director. The Associate Dean is not a member of the committee but is available for consultation and advice during the review process. Members of the committee may be chosen from within and from outside of the College. The Associate Dean appoints the committee chair.
4. The committee meets with the Associate Dean to review the available information and to finalize the questions that are to be addressed in the unit’s report.
5. The Associate Dean drafts the formal solicitation that goes to the unit, following the template at the end of these guidelines.
6. Upon receipt of the units’ report, the committee prepares its report. The final report should address:
   1. The goals and expectations associated with the unit.
   2. How well the unit has achieved its goals and what steps it could take to be even more effective.
   3. The unit’s contributions to the research and educational missions of the School.
   4. The appropriateness and feasibility of the unit’s plans for the future.
   5. How the unit is viewed by its various constituencies.
   6. The strengths and limitations of the current director’s leadership
7. The Associate Dean attaches his/her recommendation to the committee report and forwards to the School Dean.

General Policies

• Elected committee members will serve staggered three-year terms (one-third of a committee will be replaced each year);
• Generally, no committee member may serve on the same committee for more than two consecutive terms. If necessary, the Dean may request an exception to this rule.

1. Elected Committees and Positions

1.1 Faculty Advisory Board

The Faculty Advisory Board (FAB) serves as the School’s primary policy committee. It will meet at least monthly with the Dean in attendance and as needed. In consultation with the Dean, the FAB shall:

• Formulate and approve strategic directions and policies of the School, including the recommendation of faculty hiring authorizations, which require the Dean’s approval;
• Recommends policy documents for faculty approval;
• Periodically review undergraduate degree programs and approve modifications to curricula in the School recommended by the Undergraduate Curriculum Committee;
• Periodically review graduate degree programs and meet with the Graduate Affairs Committee as needed on such matters as curriculum, Student Academic Appointments, etc.
• Advise the School Dean on major budgetary allocations in the School;
• Communicate faculty concerns to the School and College Deans;
• Apprise the School Dean of collaborative initiatives between units in the School;
• Assist the Dean in meeting with External Boards of the School (representative selected among elected members of FAB) such as the Merchandising Industry Council.
• Advise the Dean on matters relating to faculty and FTE transfers;
• Collaborates with the Dean, the Associate Dean, the Promotion and Tenure Committee, and the Area Coordinators to conduct merit assessment for salary-setting. (see Appendix 11)

Membership:

In addition to the Associate Dean who will serve as an ex-officio member, the Faculty Advisory Board will be comprised of five members (three of whom will be tenured or tenure-track). Along with tenure-line faculty, full-time Academic Specialists, Lecturers, Senior Lecturers, and Teaching Professors are eligible for election to the Faculty Advisory Board. Membership will be for three years. To ensure continuity, two members will rotate off and be replaced by newlyelected members, who will serve beginning the following fall. The Executive Director of Academics will not serve on this board, but will be asked to sit in on meetings as appropriate for the discussion and content.

1.2 Promotion and Tenure Review Committee

As described in Appendices 1 and 2 attached to this document, the Promotion and Tenure Committee of the School participates in both the review and evaluation of candidates for tenure and promotion to Associate Professor, and promotion of Lecturers to Senior Lecturer or Teaching Professor. Its membership and voting are governed in part by university policy. Its functioning is as follows:

• For tenure and promotion cases, this committee is chaired by an elected committee member and supervised by the Associate Dean. If the Associate Dean is not a full professor, the Dean will appoint a professor to supervise it;
• All members serve three-year terms, which will be arranged in a “staggered” fashion so that the committee always has experienced and new members working together. A method for creating the “stagger” at the inception of the committee may necessitate that one-third of its members serve for one or three years;
• Members will participate in the discussion of cases in their areas, but will recuse themselves from voting.

Membership:

Consistent with Section A (6.3) above, the committee includes five members elected from the School: two professors of full rank and at least one member coming from the five Groups listed. All members of the committee must be tenured faculty members. For tenure cases and those leading to the full professor rank, two members from the College Promotion and Tenure Committees will be added. For promotion cases to Senior Lecturer or Teaching Professor, two Senior Lecturers or Teaching Professors in the School will be added.

2. Full Professor Promotion Committee

As described in the Appendices 1 and 2 attached to this document, the Full Professor Promotion Committee of the School participates in the review and evaluation of associate professors for promotion to full professor. This committee is chaired by an elected faculty member and supervised by the Associate Dean. If the Associate Dean is not a full professor, the Dean will appoint a professor to supervise it.

Membership:

• The committee should be composed of all SoAAD Full Professors (not in the Dean’s office). Upon such time that number exceeds five, there will be an election process. In that election all tenured/tenure-track faculty can vote
• The committee includes at least three members, all of full rank.
• Two members from the College Promotion and Tenure Committee will be added as described in this document. (See section 1.2 above - Promotion and Tenure Review Committee.)
• Members will participate in the discussion of cases in their areas, but will recuse themselves from voting.

3. Standing School-level Committees

The following standing School-level committees shall be established:

3.1 Area Coordinators Committee

This committee, comprised of the fifteen area coordinators, will be chaired by the Executive Director of Academics. The committee will meet as needed to discuss topics of mutual concern and will independently:

• Meet regularly to discuss topics of common interest and at least monthly with the Executive Director of Academics;
• Report to appropriate offices and to the Executive Director of Academics on the safety of studios and equipment, conduct inventories, and check equipment in and out;
• Recommend hiring needs to the Faculty Advisory Board and Dean
• Forward budgetary or fiscal needs to the School;
• Recommend visiting talks, workshops, and so on to the Executive Director of Academics;
• Organize area activities including field trips and exhibitions;
• Direct all inquiries about degrees, curricula, and careers to appropriate School administrator; and assist graduate students in the area.

3.2 Graduate Affairs Committee

Members of this committee shall include the Director of Graduate Studies (chair); Director of Graduate Studies for the M.Arch, three appointed members; and one graduate student representative elected by graduate students.

• In addition, the Director of Academic Support Services will serve as an exoffico member of the committee.
• The charge of this committee is to coordinate and administer graduate degree programs. This includes: graduate curriculum oversight; graduate student admissions; resource allocation for graduate student assistantships and fellowships (done by subcommittee, determined by the DGS); graduate degree and minor development; graduate program promotion; and graduate student orientation. This committee will recommend graduate program policies and procedures to the deans.
• All proposals for curricular reform or development must be forwarded to the Faculty Advisory Board. If both the Graduate Affairs Committee and Faculty Advisory Board endorse a proposal, it will then be forwarded to School faculty for an up or down vote. Faculty should be afforded a reasonable opportunity to review relevant documents before the vote is taken: i.e., 1–2 weeks. The Dean must approve such votes before they can be enacted. As is the case for all units in the College of Arts and Sciences, curricular revisions and related documents will then be sent to the appropriate College Associate Dean and curriculum committee.
• In addition, a sub-committee of this group will comprise a Fellowship and Graduate Awards Committee that evaluates applicants to graduate programs and recommend awards, and assesses graduate student applicants for award competitions.

3.3 Undergraduate Curriculum Committee

Members of this committee shall include: Director of Undergraduate Studies (chair); Executive Director of Academics, three appointed members; the Director of the Creative Core; and a representative from academic advising appointed by the Executive Director of Academics.

• In addition, the Director of Academic Support Services will serve as an exoffico member of the committee.
• The charge of this committee is to: coordinate track/specialization and degree requirements; recommend to the Dean’s policies and procedures regarding undergraduate programs and online initiatives; review and propose specializations and tracks; and consult with the School’s Graduate Committee when appropriate.
• Curriculum development, revision, and creation originate with this committee, which forwards relevant proposals to the Faculty Advisory Board. If both the Undergraduate Curriculum Committee and Faculty Advisory Board endorse a proposal, it will then be forwarded to School faculty for an up or down vote. The Dean must approve such votes before they can be enacted. As is the case presently with all units in the College of Arts and Sciences, curricular revisions and documents pertinent to their evaluation will then be sent to the appropriate College Associate Dean and curriculum committee (see Appendix 9 Curricular Revision Process).

3.4 Undergraduate Scholarship and Awards Committee

Members of this committee will be co-chaired by the Executive Director of Academics and the Recruitment + Admissions Coordinator.

This Awards Committee will evaluate School-wide undergraduate scholarship and award nominations and recommend winners/recipients. They will also work with the area coordinators to coordinate the distribution of area specific scholarships and awards. This committee will organize the annual awards and scholarship ceremony. The committee will also work with the Director of Development and Alumni Relations to ensure compliance with gift agreements.

3.5 Search and Screen Committees

The Dean will identify instructional needs (by area and rank) and determine when search and screen procedures are necessary. The Dean will appoint a committee chair and committee members for each identified faculty search. The Committee will be comprised of faculty members of the appropriate rank and area of expertise. The Dean will allocate a budget for advertising the position and for funding candidate campus interviews.

3.6 Dean’s Student Advisory Board

Members of this committee shall include: one dean-appointed faculty liaison, one member (graduate or undergraduate) from each of the fifteen areas. Annually, each area will make nominations for their representative to the SAB and the Dean will make the final choice to ensure as much diversity as possible. The charge of this committee is to: serve in an advisory capacity to the Dean and the School’s committees in representing the interests and concerns of Eskenazi School of Art, Architecture + Design students. The SABwill also serve as a sounding board for the Faculty Advisory Board when they need student input on policies.

3.7 Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Committee

This Committee will be defined after school discussions that are slated for Fall 2020.

3.8 Each year there will be ad hoc committees to address current issues, as needed.

Attached to this document are a series of appendices defining common policies and procedures pertaining to faculty reappointment, tenure, promotion, annual assessment of merit, and administrative roles in the School. A separate manual of additional policies is also available.

A. Introduction

Promotion and tenure procedures are governed by procedures and guidelines at multiple levels of the institution. Preferred procedures and a digest of official policies endorsed by the Bloomington Faculty Council (BFC) regarding promotion and tenure can be found at:
https://vpfaa.indiana.edu/policies/index.html?dept=tenure-reappointment-promotion-and-salary

In addition, IU-Bloomington’s promotion and tenure guidelines are described on the website of the Office of the Provost for Faculty & Academic Affairs:
https://vpfaa.indiana.edu/faculty-resources/tenure-promotion/index.html

This document describes procedures and guidelines that the Eskenazi School of Art, Architecture + Design and the Dean’s Office must follow for promotion and tenure.

B. Process

1. Annual Reviews
Each tenure track faculty member will be reviewed annually by the Dean, the Associate Dean, the Promotion & Tenure Committee, or the Faculty Advisory Board of the School. These annual reviews provide an opportunity to evaluate whether the faculty member is progressing towards a favorable tenure or promotion decision and offer an opportunity to bring potential problems to the candidate’s attention in a timely fashion. A written summary of the annual review must be provided to the faculty member. The written summaries are intended for faculty feedback and growth and not included in subsequent dossiers developed for tenure and/or promotion. Annual reviews may be used to provide support for merit salary review recommendations to the Dean. (See Appendix 11: Merit Salary Review, Appendix 14: Mentorship Program, and Appendix 15: Peer Review Guidelines.)

2. Midterm Reappointment Review
No later than the third year of the probationary period, the faculty member will receive a midterm reappointment review. This is a thorough review that involves a Promotion & Tenure committee report and recommendation, and a review by the Dean. This is an opportunity for senior colleagues to learn more about each junior colleague’s work, provide mentorship, and evaluate the progress towards meeting the criteria towards tenure and/or promotion. In the case of a decision not to reappoint, candidates may appeal the decision following campus and BFC policy:

https://vpfaa.indiana.edu/policies/bl-aca-e17-review-non-reappointments/index.html

https://vpfaa.indiana.edu/doc/pt-revised-review-guidelines.pdf

It is important to emphasize that this reappointment does not guarantee tenure and/or promotion. Please refer to the College Policy on Midterm Pre-tenure Review:

https://intranet.college.indiana.edu/cpc/policies/midterm-pre-tenure-review.html

3.Review Period
A candidate is usually reviewed for tenure and promotion in the sixth year of the tenure probationary period. An early tenure review can occur in an unusually meritorious case or when prior service at another institution warrants such consideration. Please note that a candidate for tenure may be considered only once. Work conducted prior to a candidate’s first appointment to IUB (e.g., scholarly or creative work) may be taken into consideration as additional evidence of pace, future trajectories, and continuity or change in research interest. Work produced since the tenure candidate’s first appointment at IUB is assumed to be a better predictor of future productivity than earlier work. In the case of the promotion to full professor, review will examine accomplishments in rank as associate professor, with emphasis placed on work at Indiana University. If tenure is granted after being promoted to full professor, the review will examine accomplishments in rank as full professor.

The University has Family Leave and Medical Leave policies that can affect the timing of promotion and tenure by “extending the probationary period” for a pre-specified and contractual period of time. Faculty members should discuss the timing of such leaves and their relation to the promotion and tenure process with the Associate Dean of the School, who will also consult with the Dean. Tenure-track faculty taking leave must contact and receive approval from the Vice Provost for Faculty and Academic Affairs to ensure that there is appropriate and clearly written documentation of leave agreements.

https://vpfaa.indiana.edu/faculty-resources/faculty-leaves-sabbaticals/index.html

4. Primary Criterion for Promotion and Tenure
A candidate must decide the basis for promotion, in consultation with the Associate Dean. The basis for promotion and/or tenure in most cases is the rating of “excellent” in research or creative activity. There should be strong indications in the dossier that the candidate will maintain and enhance the level of performance on which the awarding of tenure and/or promotion is based. Other bases for promotion are excellence in teaching or service. In exceptional cases, a candidate may present evidence of balanced strengths. In the balanced case, a candidate must be “very good” in all three performance areas. In all other cases, the dossier must demonstrate at least “satisfactory/effective” performance in the areas not selected as a basis for promotion.

4.1 Excellence in Research/Creative Activity: If research or creative work is the basis for tenure and promotion, the candidate must clearly be developing, a position of national and/or international leadership in a substantiated This must be demonstrated by the evidence in external letters and internal reports, and by pertinent documentation in the dossier.

4.2 Excellence in Teaching: Teaching excellence requires the candidate to provide evidence of a significant national and/or international educational impact on their field outside of Indiana If the basis for promotion is teaching, the candidate’s teaching record should be comparable to those of the most effective teachers at this institution.

4.3 Excellence in Service/Engagement: Service is an expected and essential responsibility of all faculty and satisfactory performance is expected both for promotion from Assistant to Associate Professor and for promotion from Associate to Full Professor. Service as the basis for promotion is rarely used and requires demonstrated excellence with national/international visibility and professional stature resulting from service activities. In contrast, a rating of “very good” requires evidence of significant impact on the University or one’s discipline.

4.4 Balanced Case: In exceptional cases a balanced case may be pursued, but it is understood that such a case should involve a consistent and planned approach over time to meaningfully integrate research, teaching, and service. In a balanced case, the candidate’s integrated contributions in research, teaching and service to the university must be shown to be comparable in excellence to that of a candidate with a single primary area. For a successful balanced case, the candidate must achieve the rating of “very good” in all three categories.

All tenured and tenure-track faculty members are expected to maintain an exemplary research/creative practice and develop and sustain a professional profile befitting the nature of their work and the national/international reputation of Indiana University.  A rating of very good in research/creative activity requires evidence of significant contributions to a substantiated field.  This includes the sustained production of high-quality work evidenced by the prominence/reputation of the venue/publisher and the scope/breadth of its readership/audience.  Faculty research that, in part, reflects rigorous investigations of the intersection of practice and pedagogy is highly valued in a balanced case. 

In teaching, a very good rating requires evidence of important contribution to teaching inside this university, and where possible, outside it. A very good rating should include a record of teaching that matches the best teaching found on campus. It demonstrates breadth, depth, and evidence of highly effective pedagogical practices. It will often include significant contributions to service work linked to teaching such as development or administration of various courses or a program.

And in service, a very good rating requires evidence of significant impact on the university and/or one’s discipline.  A very good rating involves service activities that reach beyond exemplary service work within the unit to include active and significant service at the university, as well as national or international levels.

5. Pre-promotion Review by Full Professors
The Pre-Promotion Review is analogous to the 5^th Year pre-tenure review. It is intended to give the full professors the opportunity to provide the promotion candidate with insight into how the dossier is perceived by the senior faculty members, to offer recommendations regarding the timing of the promotion review, and to offer suggestions for editing and improving the working dossier before submission to external referees.

5.1 The committee will be composed of all Eskenazi School Full Professors until such time that there is a sufficient number of Full Professors from which a committee can be elected. The Full Professor Promotion Committee is composed of at least three Eskenazi School Full Professors elected by the faculty holding full professor rank. If necessary, a committee member may be appointed by the Dean from faculty outside the Eskenazi School.

5.2 A mentor is selected (if not already in place) in consultation with Associate Dean, P&T/Full Professor Promotion Committee, candidate, and VPFAA as appropriate; in some situations, a mentor may be a faculty member outside the Eskenazi School.

5.3 The mentor assists the candidate with the statement, CV, and dossier preparation and School staff assists as available; Associate Dean provides procedural guidance:

1. Candidate identifies area of excellence
2. Candidate prepares statement discussing research/creative activity:
   • Research plan related to work in rank as Associate Professor
   • Discussion of work in terms of peer review, critiques, citations, etc.
   • Discussion of outlet or venue for scholarly publications and/or exhibitions, importance of and justification for venues in which work appears
   • Discussion of co-authorship, solo vs. group exhibition, etc.
   • Discussion of juried presentations, popular culture publications, other media
3. Candidate prepares statements discussing teaching and service
4. Candidate updates and refines CV
5. Candidate prepares working draft of external dossier
6. NO EXTERNAL REFEREE LETTERS ARE SOLICITED

5.4 The candidate submits a working dossier and related documents to the Full Professor Promotion Committee via Box; meets with the Full Professor Promotion Committee for informal presentation of the dossier; opportunity for the Committee to ask questions of the candidate for clarification, as needed.

5.5 The Full Professor Promotion Committee may seek informal input from related area faculty, as needed.

5.6 The Full Professor Promotion Committee members are expected to consider the quality and quantity of the candidate’s work in a manner analogous to a broader College or VPFAA committee. That is, some committee members will not possess subject matter expertise for every Eskenazi School area, but are asked to consider the dossier, participate in committee discussions, and arrive at an informed conclusion with separate evaluations of research, teaching, service, and promotion.

5.7 The Full Professor Promotion Committee members provide guidance to the candidate regarding the candidate’s dossier, including recommendations for the candidate regarding content and timing of promotion review.

6. Primary Criterion for Promotion to Full Professor
Mid-career Associate Professors are encouraged to seek Promotion to Full Professor.  All candidates will be evaluated by the Full Professor Promotion Committee with regard to their contributions in the areas of research, teaching, and service, as stipulated in the Vice Provost for Faculty and Academic Affairs’ Academic Guide:

https://vpfaa.indiana.edu/faculty-resources/tenure-promotion/index.html

Normally, it is expected that the candidate should be rated as “excellent” in at least one of the following categories and be “satisfactory” in the others. In exceptional cases the candidate may present evidence of a balance of strengths. In all cases, the candidate's total record should be assessed by comprehensive and rigorous peer review, and there should be strong indications in the dossier that the candidate will maintain and enhance the level of performance on which the awarding of promotion is based. Refer to the College of Arts and Sciences policy regarding Promotion to Full Professor at:

https://intranet.college.indiana.edu/cpc/policies/full-professor.html

6.1 Excellence in Research/Creative Activity: If research or creative work is the basis for promotion, the candidate is expected to have achieved a position of leadership in a substantiated field. This must be demonstrated by the evidence in external letters and internal reports, and by pertinent documentation in the dossier.

6.2 Excellence in Teaching: Teaching excellence requires the candidate to provide evidence of a significant national and/or international educational impact on their field outside of Indiana University. If the basis for promotion is teaching, the candidate’s teaching record should be comparable to those of the most effective teachers in their discipline nationally.

6.3 Excellence in Service/Engagement: Service is an expected and essential responsibility of all faculty and satisfactory performance is expected both for promotion from Assistant to Associate Professor and for promotion from Associate to Full Professor. Service as the basis for promotion is rarely used and requires demonstrated excellence with national/international visibility and professional stature resulting from service activities.

6.4 Balanced Case: In exceptional cases a balanced case may be pursued, but it is understood that such a case should involve a consistent and planned approach over time to meaningfully integrate research, teaching, and service. In a balanced case, the candidate’s integrated contributions in research, teaching and service to the university must be shown to be comparable in excellence to that of a candidate with a single primary area. For a successful balanced case, the candidate must achieve the rating of “very good” in all three categories.

All tenured and tenure-track faculty members are expected to maintain an exemplary research/creative practice and develop and sustain a professional profile befitting the nature of their work and the national/international reputation of Indiana University.  A rating of very good in research/creative activity requires evidence of significant contributions to a substantiated field.  This includes the sustained production of high-quality work evidenced by the prominence/reputation of the venue/publisher and the scope/breadth of its readership/audience.  Faculty research that, in part, reflects rigorous investigations of the intersection of practice and pedagogy is highly valued in a balanced case. 

In teaching, a very good rating requires evidence of important contribution to teaching inside this university, and where possible, outside it. A ve­­ry good rating should include a record of teaching that matches the best teaching found on campus. It demonstrates breadth, depth, and evidence of highly effective pedagogical practices. It will often include significant contributions to service work linked to teaching such as development or administration of various courses or a program.

And in service, a very good rating requires evidence of significant impact on the university and/or one’s discipline.  A very good rating involves service activities that reach beyond exemplary service work within the unit to include active and significant service at the university, as well as national or international levels.

7. Comparison Group
The populations within which candidates for tenure and promotion are to be evaluated in regard to research, creative activity, and teaching are those who have recently received tenure/promotion or who will soon be considered for tenure/promotion at major research universities.

8. Additional Considerations
With the growth of interdisciplinary research and with the emergence of new fields, not all research/creative activity will fit comfortably into traditional “disciplinary” expectations or understandings. Also, the world of scholarly publishing is undergoing revolutionary change. New forms of digital scholarly communication (e-journals, moderated websites, blogs) continue to emerge and grow. In response to the developments, IUB Tenure and Promotion Guidelines include three additional areas for consideration:

Interdisciplinarity: Candidates for tenure and promotion are encouraged to pursue innovation wherever it seems promising, even at the edges of disciplinary boundaries or between them. Reviewers at all levels should be open to the possibility that work “on the edges” or straddling two fields may eventually transform research agendas in fundamental ways not always easily recognized by the home unit. A candidate’s interdisciplinarity may require that some adaption of expectations/criteria and procedures. For example, practices for assembling review committees and soliciting external referees may need to be altered in order to ensure that all aspects of research or creative activity are assessed by properly knowledgeable judges.

New Scholarly Communications: Reviewers at all levels should consider that the best new research/creative activity may not necessarily appear in the top traditional disciplinary journals or in books published by the historically most prestigious publishing houses. Peer reviewed publications are given greater weight than those that are not. Candidates must assume responsibility for providing evidence of the value of their publication outlets or exhibition venues.

Impacton Diverse Communities: In assessing the impact of research/creative activity, reviewers should consider the variety of communities- inside the academy and beyond- which may be transformed in significant ways by a candidate’s work. The emergence of “public scholarship” and public art and design expands the range of audiences to whom scholars/artists/designers may direct their research/creative activity, and sometimes the best of this work does not appear in narrowly-defined professional vehicles. Candidates should describe how their research/ creative activity actively directed to non-academic audiences intersects with work undertaken for a scholarly or artistic community.

Public scholarship, design, or art—that produced for non-academic venues or constituencies--will not supplant or supersede expectations for work targeted to peer professional communities, but it may supplement that work.  Evidence of “public” scholarship or art includes panel/commission and other reports, and aesthetic plans for community/civic groups.

9. External Referees
In the spring semester prior to the year when the tenure or promotion case is to be considered (typically mid-January of the 5^th year for tenure cases), the Associate Dean will consult with members of the area and, when appropriate, members of any research institute/center with which the faculty member is affiliated. The Associate Dean will ask senior faculty members in the area (or a related one) and/or the committee to submit alist of external referees who will be invited to evaluate the record of the candidate.

Subsequently, the candidate will be asked to submit a list of potential external referees. Each list must include at least 6 names and should be submitted together to the Dean of the Eskenazi School for approval and selection. The candidate and area lists must be developed independently and include embedded links to prospective referee web pages on the lists.  If the area’s list of recommended external referees overlaps with the candidate’s list, these referees’ names will count as candidate-recommended referees. This process is followed to ensure the department’s list is independent of the candidate’s list. Once the external letters arrive, candidates may request to see them, and the School must oblige by allowing the candidate to read the letters. However, it is generally recommended that the candidate not insist on reading the letters at least until after the dossier has left the School.

External referees should generally be from comparable or more highly regarded institutions. Ideally, they should be Full Professors with the expertise to evaluate the candidate’s record. Dissertation or MFA advisors, close personal friends, collaborators, former students, or other individuals who might be viewed as having a conflict of interest are not to be asked to serve as external referees. The expectation is that there will be six letters in the file: normally three from the candidate’s list and three from the faculty group’s list. There must be no fewer than six letters. However, all requested letters that are received must be included in the dossier. Thus, on occasion there may be more than six letters if additional letters are requested in an effort to ensure that the six-letter minimum is achieved and more than six ultimately are submitted by the referees. All solicited letters should be included in the candidate’s dossier prior to the School’s vote, so that all voting faculty members have access to this information. External referees are usually asked to submit their letters by early July.

10. Internal Letters
The Associate Dean may also solicit on-campus letters only from those who have been asked to observe the candidate’s teaching, those who are in a position to comment knowledgeably on the candidate’s contributions to their collaborative projects, and those from outside the department who may comment on the candidate’s service contributions elsewhere (e.g., directors of programs, institutes, or centers). In all other instances, solicited or unsolicited letters from other faculty members (especially those in the home area) are discouraged.

11. Candidate’s Statements
The candidate is required to complete and submit a draft of his/her statements in early spring prior to tenure and promotion consideration. It is submitted for commentary to the candidate’s internal mentor(s)—selected as the result of a discussion between the candidate, the Associate Dean, and the elected Promotion and Tenure Committee--so that a revised copy might be sent later in the spring to external referees. The candidate’s statement that focuses on research or creative activity should embed the listing of publications and/or exhibitions on the c.v. in a narrative trajectory, highlighting finished projects, current work, and future plans. A succinct statement is most effective. The candidate’s statement also should include a section describing his or her teaching program, indicating courses taught, pedagogical objectives and methods, and any past, present, or future course development activity. It should also contain a discussion of service activities for the department, School, College, University, profession, and community. The candidate’s statements should be accessible to several audiences, including external referees, fellow School and other university colleagues, and administrators. Thus, the candidate’s statements should strike a balance between communicating with experts in the field and those who are not members of the discipline and who may not be familiar with the candidate’s area of research. Candidates are encouraged to seek advice on their statements from the mentoring committee and recently tenured and/or senior colleagues. The candidate’s statement should be included in the information sent to external referees.

12. External Review Dossier
The external review dossier that is sent to reviewers is compiled by the candidate in consultation with their mentor and the Associate Dean and consists of the candidate’s statements, CV, and a representative subset of materials supporting the candidate’s teaching and service contributions.  It is accompanied by a letter from the School’s Dean clearly explaining the purpose and expectations for the review.

13. Joint Appointments
Faculty with joint appointments will have a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) that identifies the tenure home and describes the procedures for tenure and promotion consideration. The process of initiating an MOU and an outline of typical MOU contents are described in the Appendices.

14. Tenure/Promotion Dossier
The Associate Dean is responsible for ensuring that the dossier is compiled correctly. The candidate is responsible for assembling the necessary dossier materials with guidance and direction from their mentor and the Associate Dean; the candidate should not be left to determine on their own what needs to be presented. When possible, tenure or promotion candidates will receive help preparing their dossiers with the clerical and organizational assistance of school staff or a senior administrator. Promotion and tenure dossiers are electronic. Access to the dossier will be password-controlled and only eligible faculty and administrators will be granted access. The Associate Dean will be responsible for identifying those who should have access to the dossier once it is uploaded and ready for review.

The dossier must include:

General

• School Criteria/Expectations for Promotion
• Candidate’s Curriculum Vitae indicating work done in-rank
• Candidate’s statement on teaching and service (as sent to external reviewers.)
• School List of Prospective Referees including brief summary of credentials and relationships with candidate (provided by the school)
• Candidate’s List of Prospective Referees including credentials and relationships with candidate

Research/Creative Activity

• Copies of Publications and/or Evidence of Creative Work (including scholarly presentations)
• Reviews of Candidate’s scholarship, Creative Performances, and Exhibitions
• List of Grants Applied for/Received (include cover sheet/abstract; funding source; amount; PI)
• Copies of Manuscripts or Creative Works in Progress
• Evidence for the Impact/Influence of Publications or Creative Works (e.g., citations)
• Evidence for the Stature/Visibility of Journals, Presses or Artistic Venues
• Awards and Honors for Research/Creative Activity
• Candidate’s Contributions to Collaborative Projects (with letters from collaborators)

Teaching

• List of Courses Taught (chronologically by semester, number of students enrolled, grade distribution)
• Sample of Course Materials (syllabi, exercises, assignments, exams, student work, etc.)
• Graduate Training (MFA or Masters-committee member or chair; project titles)
• Student Awards, Honors, Collaborative Publications, Achievements
• Undergraduate Research Experiences and Mentoring
• Student Course Evaluations: All OCQ evaluation results from each course should be included. A summary table for the results of the four required outcomes should also be included as well as a list of all qualitative
• Unsolicited Letters from Former Students
• Evidence of Learning Outcomes (assessment strategies, supporting data, and any pedagogical adjustments made)
• Peer Evaluations (peer reviews of teaching)
• Curricular Development (includes new courses and/or programs, and evidence of impact)
• Professional Pedagogical Development (workshops; learning communities; master classes, etc.)
• Teaching Publications (Includes scholarship of teaching and learning, pedagogical articles (note refereed) textbooks)
• Teaching Awards, Honors, Grants, Fellowships

Service/Engagement

• Evidence of Service to the University, School and Area
• Evidence of Service to the Profession (including book reviews)
• Evidence of Engagement with Non-Academic Communities and Agencies

All vote-eligible faculty have the right and responsibility to review the
dossier prior to the School vote.

15. Promotion and Tenure Committee Procedure and Report
The School recommends the following procedure: In the event that a mentor has not been previously identified for a tenure-probationary faculty member, one will be selected. The Associate Dean works with the candidate and the elected Faculty Advisory Board (FAB) to select a mentor who has the appropriate rank and expertise to advise regarding the dossier and provide guidance to the candidate on dossier preparation.

The elected School Promotion & Tenure Committee should be composed as described in the Governance Document. The Promotion & Tenure Committee is charged with submitting a written report to the School faculty evaluating the candidate’s case for promotion. The committee report will include:

• an evaluation of the candidate’s work;
• a summary and evaluation of both the external referees’ assessment and the internal letters (one that avoids long quotations from the letters themselves);
• an evaluation of teaching consisting of a discussion of teaching metrics that include the numerical student evaluation scores, written comments, and peer reviews, as well as a narrative that provides an assessment of such factors as breadth, content, and innovation; and,
• an evaluation of School, university, professional, and community service (local, national, and international).

The Promotion & Tenure Committee report must conclude with a recommendation regarding tenure and promotion on the basis chosen by the candidate (i.e., research/creative activity, teaching, service) or as a balanced case. The P&T Committee report must provide a recommendation in all these areas—research/creative activity, teaching, and service—as well as an overall recommendation. The committee report will be made available to all tenured faculty of appropriate rank for review prior to the School meeting. This is a confidential document that cannot be shared outside the eligible voting members prior to the faculty vote, and it is formally included in the dossier.

The P&T Committee report should not be edited in response to the School’s deliberation and vote. In an explanatory letter included with the dossier and forwarded to the School Dean, the Associate Dean must contextualize the vote, capturing the range of assessments presented at the meeting of the voting-eligible faculty, so as to give later reviewers a better understanding of the grounds for both positive and negative votes (if any). Both tenured Associate and Full Professors are eligible to vote in tenure and promotion cases, but only Full Professors may vote for promotion from Associate to Full Professor. Associate and Full Professors as well as Senior Lecturers are eligible to vote in cases for promotion to Senior Lecturer. As the Eskenazi School of Art, Architecture + Design’s governance document stipulates, only faculty members with 0.5 FTE or greater are eligible to vote. An overall vote on tenure and/or promotion must be taken, as well as separate votes in each of the three performance areas, using campus-wide evaluative categories (excellent, very good, satisfactory/effective, unsatisfactory/ineffective).

If a candidate has appointments in multiple units (i.e., a split appointment), one unit is designated as the “tenure home.” For split appointments, the tenure home must be identified in a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU). Non-tenure-home units send their review reports and recommendations to the dean of the home unit, who includes them in the dossier for consideration by the home unit.

16. School Meeting and Vote
The School will hold a meeting early in the Fall semester to consider its promotion and tenure recommendation for the candidate, at which the Associate Dean presides. Voting members meet and discuss the P&T Committee report and the case. Faculty members unable to attend the meeting are still eligible to vote if they have been “materially engaged” in the review process. Faculty members who are away from campus are encouraged to participate in the meeting and vote electronically; this vote must be cast within 24 hours of the meeting’s end and may be cast earlier by notification to the Associate Dean. No proxy votes are allowed. The School recommendation must be based on the ballots from three or more vote-eligible faculty members, not including the Associate Dean. In cases of the promotion of an Associate Professor to Full Professor, if three full professors are not available, the Associate Dean will empanel a full professor from another academic unit for this purpose.

Following discussion, eligible faculty vote by secret ballot on whether to recommend tenure and/or promotion on the stated basis (i.e., research/creative activity, teaching, service, or as a balanced case). Prior to the vote, the Associate Dean will review campus criteria and requirements for a vote in support of the candidate. For the categories of research and service, the four options on the ballot are excellent, very good, satisfactory, and unsatisfactory. For the category of teaching, the four options on the ballot are excellent, very good, effective, and ineffective. The Associate Dean must make clear at the meeting that in order to register a positive vote for tenure and promotion, the ballot must indicate excellence in the primary area of consideration and at least satisfactory/effective in the other two areas (except in a balanced case, in which all areas must be ranked very good). All other votes will register as a negative vote. Faculty members have the right to abstain. Absences and abstentions do not register as a vote on the ballot. The Associate Dean’s letter should provide an account of any absences or abstentions.

When all ballots have been submitted, the votes will be tallied by an HR officer or other appropriate senior staff member as specified prior to the meeting, and the Associate Dean will inform the vote-eligible faculty members of the results. The anonymity of votes will be maintained, although the ballots will be kept in a signed and sealed envelope in case they are requested by the  Dean or the Provost. The Associate Dean does not vote on the School ballot, but rather records his or her vote as part of the AD’s review and also on the routing sheet.

17. The Associate Dean’s Review
After the School faculty vote, the Associate Dean writes a separate statement. The statement includes a description of the faculty deliberations, including any unique characteristics of the discipline that may bear on the case (e.g., books versus articles, exhibitions, etc.) and an accounting of the discussions in the meeting that might explain the vote, particularly in the case of negative votes, abstentions, absentees and faculty who fail to vote. The Associate Dean is responsible for presiding at the meeting and ensuring that there is ample time to discuss the case; he or she should remind faculty it is their obligation to express their views whether positive or negative, but it is particularly important if they do not plan to support the case for tenure and/or promotion. The Associate Dean also offers an independent recommendation regarding tenure and/or promotion; this recommendation is not bound by the faculty’s vote.

The Associate Dean’s review, the School’s Promotion & Tenure committee report, and the recorded vote are added to the dossier. It is strongly recommended that the Associate Dean meet with the candidate in a timely fashion to discuss the vote. The completed file is then forwarded to the Dean’s office through the e-Dossier process. The deadline for submission of the file to the Dean is generally in the middle of September for tenure cases, late September for promotion to Full Professor and Clinical Associate and Clinical Full Professor cases, and late October for promotion to Senior Lecturer cases.

18. Degree of Candidate Access to File
According to Indiana University policy, all dossier materials including external reference letters must be shared with the candidate upon request at any time in the review process. Candidates may add new material to the dossier at any time during the review process and should do so if new information becomes available (e.g., an acceptance of a manuscript or article) that would improve the case for tenure.

19. Campus Procedures
19.1 Dean’s Office: Once the dossier leaves the Associate Dean’s office, it goes to the School’s Dean. The Dean prepares a letter evaluating the research/creative activity, teaching, and service, together with a recommendation (vote) on tenure and/or promotion. Before submitting the letter and recommendation, the Dean will make the dossier available to the Executive Dean of the College and will consult with the Executive Dean. Following consultation, the Dean will submit the letter and recommendation to the Vice Provost for Faculty and Academic Affairs by mid-December.

19.2 Campus Committees: After the file leaves the School, it goes either to the Campus Tenure Advisory Committee (due November 1) or the Campus Promotion Advisory Committee (due December 1). The Campus Committee members also read the file and write a report evaluating the candidate’s research, teaching, and service. The committee members vote on whether the candidate should be promoted and, if appropriate, receive tenure. The Vice Provost for Faculty and Academic Affairs (VPFAA) prepares the final substantive evaluation and recommendation for the “executive level” (Provost and President), who in turn make a recommendation to the Board of Trustees. A decision on tenure and/or promotion is communicated in campus mail once approved by the Board of Trustees prior to July 1.

19.3 Reconsideration: A faculty member may request a reconsideration upon receiving a negative tenure or promotion decision from the executive level if he or she believes that there were unjustifiable judgments of professional competence or judgments based on erroneous information. That request entails the preparation of a written rebuttal and the addition of new material germane to the deliberations. If the candidate chooses to request additional external letters, they must be obtained following the same procedures used to obtain the initial set of letters. When the rebuttal materials are completely prepared, they are included in the dossier, which is sent in its entirety back to the first level of review that made a negative recommendation (and then it is reviewed again by all subsequent levels). The reconsideration process will not add time to the candidate’s tenure probationary period, even if those deliberations extend into the seventh probationary year. Rebuttal materials must be submitted by the candidate for review within two months following notification of the negative decision.

See also: http://vpfaa.indiana.edu/docs/promotion_tenure_reappointment/pt-revised-review-guidelines.pdf

19.4 Appeal Process: If the above reconsideration results in a negative decision or if the candidate foregoes the reconsideration opportunity, the candidate has the right to file a grievance (after the executive level decision) with the BFC Faculty Board of Review (FBOR) on procedural grounds only. The Board will decide whether evidence supports the conclusion that procedural irregularities has consequences for the legitimacy of the outcome, and if so, suggests remediation to the Provost (who decides ether the review needs to be redone, all or in part). A grievance will not in itself extend the tenure probationary period (unless so requested by the Provost). The candidate must submit materials to the FBOR within two months following notification of the negative decision by the executive level, or within one month following completion of the reconsideration process.

20. Eskenazi School Promotion and Tenure Review Process

Mentors selected by Associate Dean (AD), Promotion &Tenure (P&T) Committee
Mentors assists candidate with statement and dossier preparation

↓

Candidate provides a list of external reviewers

↓

P&T Committee assists Associate Dean to develop a list of external reviewers

↓

Dean approves list of external reviewers

↓

Candidate’s statement, c.v., and external review dossier are compiled and sent to external reviewers

↓

Insert external letters

↓

Candidate works with AD, Mentors, and school staff to prepare tenure dossier

↓

P&T Committee reviews the candidate’s dossier and prepares a review statement

↓

All rank-eligible faculty review dossier with external letters and P&T committee statement, and following a discussion casts ballot
(oversight by Associate Dean)

↓

HR officer tallies the vote and submits results to the Associate Dean

↓

Associate Dean prepares a letter contextualizing the faculty review plus independent recommendation, inserts documents into eDossier; routes dossier to the Dean

↓

Dean prepares evaluative letter with recommendation

Consultation with College Executive Dean

↓

VPFAA (Vice Provost for Academic Affairs) Advisory Committee reviews dossier, prepares evaluative letter with ballot count

↓

VPFAA prepares evaluative letter with recommendation

↓

Provost and President make recommendation

↓

Board of Trustees makes recommendation

21. Sample Timeline – Tenure and Promotion to Associate Professor

(Timeline is reflected in the PDF version of the Governance Document - request a PDF from soaad@iu.edu)

A. Introduction
Promotion in non-tenure-track ranks, including the lecturer-track, are governed by procedures and guidelines at multiple levels of the institution.  The Bloomington Campus Policies for Non-Tenure-Track Instructional Appointments can be found at: https://vpfaa.indiana.edu/policies/bl-aca-a3-non-tenure-track-instructional-appointments/index.html 

Additional policies for non-tenure-track faculty at IU Bloomington are described here: https://vpfaa.indiana.edu/faculty-resources/tenure-promotion/non-tenure-track/index.html

The guidelines below are intended to clarify the processes and procedures by which Lecturers are promoted to the rank of Senior Lecturer and Senior Lecturers are promoted to the rank of Teaching Professor. This document describes procedures and guidelines that the Eskenazi School of Art, Architecture + Design must follow for the promotion of lecturer-track appointments. This process begins with annual reviews and evaluations.

B. Process

1. Annual Review and Evaluations
Each lecturer and senior lecturer will be reviewed annually by the Dean, the Associate Dean, the Promotion & Tenure Committee, or the Faculty Advisory Board of the School. These annual reviews provide an opportunity to evaluate whether the faculty member is progressing towards a favorable promotion decision and offer an opportunity to bring potential problems to the candidate’s attention in a timely fashion. A written summary of the annual review must be provided to the faculty member. The written summaries are intended for faculty feedback and growth and not included in subsequent promotion dossiers. Annual reviews may, however, be used to provide support for merit salary review recommendations to the Dean. (See Appendix 11: Merit Salary Review, Appendix 14: Mentorship Program, and Appendix 15: Peer Review Guidelines.)

Following the initial three-year appointment, Lecturers are considered for annual reappointment and are eligible for promotion to Senior Lecturer and a multi-year appointment following a maximum probationary period of seven years. Continuation of this academic appointment is contingent on effective performance of assigned duties, continuation of programmatic needs, and available funding.

2. Third-year Reappointment Review for Lecturers
Typically, a Lecturer’s initial appointment is for a three-year term.  Every Lecturer’s performance in the areas of teaching and service should be reviewed thoroughly and annually as part of the School’s annual Salary and Merit Review (See Appendix 11: Merit Salary Review).  This review in the spring of the lecturer’s third year will serve as a reappointment review.   Once completed, the Dean or Associate Dean will discuss the three annual performance evaluations on file with each Lecturer and review areas for improvement, as well as remind the candidate to continue to collect and retain evidence for eventual promotion review. Any concerns about teaching or service will be discussed with the Lecturer at this time.

In the case of a positive review, lecturers will then have annual reappointments until the promotion review in their sixth year.  A negative third-year reappointment review is a decision to not reappoint, in which case the individual is eligible to teach for one additional year in the School. 

In the case of a decision not to reappoint, candidates may appeal the decision following campus and BFC policy: https://vpfaa.indiana.edu/doc/pt-revised-review-guidelines.pdf

It is important to emphasize that this reappointment does not guarantee eventual promotion.

3. Lecturer Review Period
Lectures typically have a seven-year probationary period that is comprised of a three-year appointment followed by annual reappointments until promotion.  After successful reappointment following the third-year review, the candidate will have a pre-promotion review in the spring of their fifth year, and will be reviewed for promotion to Senior Lecturer in the fall semester of their sixth year. The Eskenazi School of Art, Architecture + Design is responsible for discussing performance expectations with all Lecturers throughout their probationary period.

A candidate for promotion to senior lecturer can be considered only once, and only teaching and service in-rank in the School will be considered for promotion. In the case of a positive review, the candidate will be promoted to the rank of Senior Lecturer and given a longer appointment, typically five years.  In the case of a negative review, the candidate is eligible to teach for one additional year in the School, the seventh year of the probationary period.

The University has Family Leave and Medical Leave policies that can affect the timing of promotion by “extending the probationary period” for a pre-specified and contractual period of time. Faculty members should discuss the timing of such leaves and their relation to the promotion process with the Associate Dean of the School, who will also consult with the Dean.  Lecturers taking leave and wishing to extend the probationary period must contact and receive approval from the Vice Provost for Faculty and Academic Affairs to ensure that there is appropriate and clearly written documentation of leave agreements.

https://vpfaa.indiana.edu/faculty-resources/faculty-leaves-sabbaticals/leaves-tenure-clock.html

4. Primary Criterion for Promotion to Senior Lecturer
Promotion to Senior Lecturer in the Eskenazi School of Art, Architecture + Design is based on a candidate’s record of teaching and service. In order to achieve promotion to Senior Lecturer and to secure a long-term appointment, the candidate must be evaluated as excellent in classroom teaching and satisfactory in service.

4.1 Excellence in Classroom Teaching: The Eskenazi School of Art Architecture + Design considers the primary role of all Lecturers to be classroom teaching which is inherently focused on students. Excellence in Classroom Teaching is evidenced through a record of classroom teaching comparable to that of the most effective teachers at this institution.  Faculty are encouraged to pursue both professional growth and currency in the field for pedagogical purposes. This includes professional development activities that enable faculty to maintain a relevant understanding of the current state of affairs in their field as well as engage with pedagogical developments in support of their classroom teaching.

A teaching portfolio for promotion to Senior Lecturer should reflect continued development of content and methodology in one’s own area of expertise. Peer reviews of teaching conducted by senior colleagues are strongly considered in evaluating Excellence in Classroom Teaching. Standardized course evaluation scores and written feedback are another important means of evaluating the candidate’s classroom teaching abilities.  They are examined in the context of school and college means, course level, curriculum and whether each course is a new preparation for the candidate.

Classroom Teaching activities in the Eskenazi School of Art, Architecture + Design are outlined in Appendix 3, Sections 3.2 and 4.1.

Materials demonstrating Excellence in Classroom Teaching in rank include, but are not limited to: Quality of student work; student course evaluations; student written evaluations; solicited and unsolicited letters and commendations from students, alumni, colleagues, peers, and supervisors; peer reviews of teaching; student accomplishments, honors, awards (current and matriculated); and teaching awards and nominations; and curricula and/or program development.  Publications on teaching are favorably regarded but are not required to secure the designation of Excellence in Classroom Teaching for the purpose of promotion to Senior Lecturer.

4.2 Service: Service is an expected and essential responsibility of all faculty and satisfactory performance is expected for promotion from Lecturer to Senior Lecturer. Satisfactory service is defined as service that effectively supports and strengthens the teaching mission of our school.

Service activities in the Eskenazi School of Art, Architecture + Design are outlined in Appendix 3, Section 5.

5. Pre-promotion Review for Candidates for Teaching Professor
The pre-promotion review for Senior Lecturers applying for promotion to Teaching Professor is initiated in the fall and completed in the spring term of the academic year before the candidate goes up for promotion. This review is led by the School’s Full Professor Promotion Committee and is intended to give the full professors and teaching professors the opportunity to provide the candidate with insight into how their accomplishments in-rank are perceived by the senior faculty members, to offer recommendations regarding the timing of the promotion review, and to offer suggestions for editing and improving the working dossier before submission to external referees.

In addition to typical annual reviews, Senior Lecturers will be reviewed by the Dean, with input from the Faculty Advisory Board, at the time of reappointment every five years.  Because there is no predetermined timeline for promotion to Teaching Professor, appropriate timing for promotion to this rank should be decided by the candidate in consultation with the Dean, Associate Dean, and the School’s Full Professor Promotion Committee. 

The pre-promotion review is as follows:

• A mentor is selected (if not already in place) in consultation with Associate Dean, Full Professor Promotion Committee, candidate, and VPFAA as appropriate; in some situations, a mentor may be a faculty member outside the Eskenazi School.

• Candidate prepares and submits updated CV that highlights achievements in-rank and draft statements on teaching and service which contextualize the candidate’s contributions.

• The Full Professor Promotion Committee members review these materials and provide feedback to the candidate, including recommendations for the candidate regarding content and timing of promotion review, seeking informal input from related area faculty, as needed.  While not required, it is recommended that the candidate move forward with the promotion application with the committee’s support.   Assuming the potential for a positive promotion evaluation, the candidate then begins preparing the external review dossier with the assistance of their mentor and school staff and procedural guidance from the Associate Dean. 

6. Primary Criterion for Promotion to Teaching Professor
Mid-career Senior Lecturers are encouraged to seek promotion to Teaching Professor.  Promotion to Teaching Professor in the Eskenazi School of Art, Architecture + Design is based on a candidate’s record of teaching and service.  In order to achieve promotion to Teaching Professor, the candidate must be evaluated as excellent in teaching and satisfactory in service.

6.1 Excellence in Classroom Teaching and Pedagogical Leadership Excellence in Classroom Teachingserves as the foundation for establishing the pedagogical leadership required for promotion to Teaching Professor. As such, in addition to maintaining Excellence in Classroom Teaching as outlined in section 4.1 above, a Senior Lecturer must have established a position of Pedagogical Leadership beyond the Eskenazi School of Art, Architecture + Design to achieve the rank of Teaching Professor. 

While Excellence in Classroom Teaching is inherently student-focused, Pedagogical Leadership is defined by peer or colleague-focused roles in which the candidate supports, transforms, and evolves teaching activities in the field.  a teaching portfolio for promotion to Teaching Professor should reflect the continued development of content and methodology in one’s own area of expertise as well as the candidate’s contributions beyond classroom.

Pedagogical leadership is evidenced by, but not limited to, activities such as leadership in curricular or program development; leadership in programmatic assessment; the authorship and dissemination of quality teaching materials including textbooks and e-texts; the receipt of grants or awards for teaching innovations and improvements; the dissemination of pedagogical innovations/approaches on a regional, national, or international level through conference presentations, invited lectures, or workshops, etc.

For a more thorough list of examples of possible evidence of pedagogical leadership, please see Appendix 3 section 4.2.

6.2 Service: Service is an expected and essential responsibility of all faculty and satisfactory performance is expected for promotion from Senior Lecturer to Teaching Professor.  Satisfactory service is defined as service that effectively supports and strengthens the teaching mission of our school.

Service activities in the Eskenazi School of Art, Architecture + Design are outlined in Appendix 3, Section 5. Parallel to promotion in the tenure-track, expectations for faculty service increase with rank in the lecturer-track.  Senior Lecturers are expected to be active participants in the life of the School and, when appropriate, to take on leadership roles in service positions, particularly those related to teaching.

Examples of evidence of service in support of teaching that demonstrate pedagogical leadership beyond the School are outlined in Appendix 3 Sections 4.2-c and include but are not limited to: Leadership at the campus or University level on councils, committees, or special assignments that are addressing teaching-related issues; Serving as a peer reviewer for teaching-related publications, conferences, and competitions; serving on review and/or editorial boards of academic or professional teaching-related journals; leadership in teaching-related societies or organizations on the regional, national or international level; and substantial service with a non-profit or government entity related to pedagogical expertise.

In promotion to the position of Teaching Professor, service in support of teaching is considered a demonstrable facet of pedagogical leadership, making the relationship between teaching and service interdependent.  In such cases, the candidates are encouraged to articulate in their statement how the interconnected nature of their teaching and service activities culminate into an overall contribution of greater strength and benefit.

The Eskenazi School of Art, Architecture + Design does not consider administrative appointments, in and of themselves, as Pedagogical Leadership. Such appointments reflect Pedagogical Leadership only when they are accompanied by significant pedagogical and/or curricular initiatives undertaken or led by the candidate.

7. Comparison Group
Candidates for promotion in the lecturer-track will be evaluated in comparison to those who have recently received or who will soon be considered for promotion in equivalent ranks at peer institutions.

8. Additional Considerations
Not every Senior Lecturer is expected to achieve the rank of Teaching Professor.  Given this, a Senior Lecturer’s choice not to pursue promotion to Teaching Professor or negative promotion review should not be viewed as a reason for non-reappointment.

9. Review Letters
Promotion dossiers for lecturers and senior lecturers require six review letters.  For promotion from Lecturer to Senior Lecturer, these letters must, at a minimum, be from individuals who are external to the School, meaning that the reviewers may be internal to the Bloomington Campus.  For promotion from Senior Lecturer to Teaching Professor, review letters must be from individuals external to Indiana University. 

In the spring semester prior to the year when the promotion case is to be considered (typically mid-January), the Associate Dean will consult with members of the area and, when appropriate, members of any relevant institute/center with which the faculty member is affiliated. The Associate Dean will ask senior faculty members in the area (or a related one) and/or the committee to submit a list of appropriate referees who will be invited to evaluate the record of the candidate.

Subsequently, the candidate will be asked to submit a list of potential reviewers. Each list must include at least six names and should be submitted together to the School’s Dean for approval and selection. The candidate and school’s lists must be developed independently and include embedded links to prospective referee web pages.  If the school’s list of recommended reviewers overlaps with the candidate’s list, these referees’ names will count as candidate-recommended referees. This process is followed to ensure the school’s list is independent of the candidate’s list. Once the review letters arrive, candidates may request to see them, and the School must oblige by allowing the candidate to read the letters. However, it is generally recommended that the candidate not insist on reading the letters at least until after the dossier has left the School.

Internal reviewers should be someone in a comparable academic field at or above the rank being sought who can meaningfully evaluate the classroom teaching and service contributions of the candidate.

External reviewers should be leaders in the candidate’s academic or professional field and include academic reviewers from peer institutions at or above the rank being sought (or equivalent rank if there is not a one-to-one correlation) and non-academic reviewers of a comparable rank such as heads of organizations who  can meaningfully evaluate the teaching and service contributions of the candidate.  Dissertation or MFA advisors, close personal friends, collaborators, former students, or other individuals who might be viewed as having a conflict of interest are not to be asked to serve as external referees.

Whether internal or external, the expectation is that there will be six letters in total: three from the candidate’s list and three from the faculty group’s list. There must be no fewer than six letters. However, all requested letters that are received must be included in the dossier. Thus, on occasion there may be more than six letters if additional letters are requested in an effort to ensure that the six-letter minimum is achieved and more than six ultimately are submitted by the referees. All solicited letters should be added to the candidate’s dossier by the Associate Dean prior to the School’s vote, so that all voting faculty members have access to this information. Referees are usually asked to submit their letters by early July.

10. Solicited Letters
The Associate Dean may also solicit on- and off-campus letters from former students, colleagues who are in a position to comment knowledgeably on the candidate’s contributions to their collaborative projects, and those from outside the School who may comment on the candidate’s service contributions elsewhere (e.g., directors of programs, institutes, centers, academic/professional organizations, etc.). In all other instances, solicited or unsolicited letters from other faculty members (especially those in the home area) are discouraged.

11. Candidate’s Statement
The candidate is required to complete and submit a statement draft in early spring prior to promotion consideration.  The statement should, in a narrative format, contextualize the candidate’s classroom teaching, and in the case of promotion to Teaching Professor, their pedagogical leadership.  This may include detailing and describing: The candidate’s pedagogical objectives and methods; any past, present or future course or curricular development work; experiences and reflections on teaching successes and challenges; descriptions and contextualization of published work on pedagogy, teaching, textbooks, and curricular innovations; evidence used for evaluating learning outcomes and teaching success; and any professional development or other work the candidate has done to maintain currency in their field, etc. 

The statement should also contain a discussion of service activities for the department, School, College, University, profession, and community, and when appropriate, draw the connections between this service. The candidate’s statements should be accessible to several audiences, including external referees, fellow School and other university colleagues, and administrators.

The statement should be reviewed with the candidate’s mentor to solicit feedback and finalize the statement for inclusion in both the external review dossier and eventual dossier. 

12. External Review Dossier
The external review dossier that is sent to reviewers is compiled by the candidate in consultation with their mentor and the associate dean and consists of the candidate’s statement, CV, and a representative subset of materials supporting the candidate’s teaching and service contributions.  It is accompanied by a letter from the School’s Dean clearly explaining the purpose and expectations for the review.

13. The Promotion Dossier

The dossier for promotion from Lecturer to Senior Lecturer or from Senior Lecturer to Teaching Professor should contain evidence of the impact of the candidate’s teaching and teaching-related activities as well as evidence of service.  Promotion dossiers are electronic. Access to the dossier will be password-controlled and only eligible faculty and administrators will be granted access. The Associate Dean will be responsible for identifying those who should have access to the dossier once it is uploaded and ready for review. 

As in tenure and promotion cases for tenure line faculty, the candidate is responsible for assembling the necessary dossier materials with guidance and direction from their mentor and the Associate Dean.  The resources of the School, including clerical support, should be provided to candidates, and the candidate should not be left to determine on their own what needs to be presented.

The candidate is responsible for the following dossier materials.

This list is based on the categories in eDossier.  Not all categories are relevant to each candidate. The Associate Dean will provide individual guidance on what is necessary and where it is best to place various information. 

General

• School Criteria/Expectations for Promotion
• Candidate’s Curriculum Vitae indicating work done in-rank
• Candidate’s statement on teaching and service (as sent to external reviewers.)
• School List of Prospective Referees including brief summary of credentials and relationships with candidate (provided by the school)
• Candidate’s List of Prospective Referees including credentials and relationships with candidate

Teaching

• List of Courses Taught (chronologically by semester, number of students enrolled, grade distribution)
• Sample of Course Materials (syllabi, exercises, assignments, exams, student work, etc.)
• Graduate Training (MFA or Masters-committee member or chair; project titles)
• Student Awards, Honors, Collaborative Publications, Achievements
• Undergraduate Research Experiences and Mentoring
• Student Course Evaluations: All OCQ evaluation results from each course should be included. A summary table for the results of the four required outcomes should also be included as well as a list of all qualitative
• Unsolicited Letters from Former Students
• Evidence of Learning Outcomes (assessment strategies, supporting data, and any pedagogical adjustments made)
• Peer Evaluations (peer reviews of teaching)
• Curricular Development (includes new courses and/or programs, and evidence of impact)
• Professional Pedagogical Development (workshops; learning communities; master classes, etc.)
• Teaching Publications (Includes scholarship of teaching and learning, pedagogical articles (note refereed) textbooks)
• Teaching Awards, Honors, Grants, Fellowships
• Research in Support of Teaching

Service/Engagement

• Evidence of Service to the University, School and Area
• Evidence of Service to the Profession
• Evidence of Engagement with Non-Academic Communities and Agencies
• Research in support of Service

For more detailed information on what, specifically, to include in the dossier, The Eskenazi School of Art, Architecture + Design follows the dossier guidelines outlined by the College of Arts and Sciences in their Senior Lecturer Promotion Procedures document: https://intranet.college.indiana.edu/documents/faculty/senior-lecturer-promotion-procedures-2019-20.pdf

14. Promotion and Tenure Committee Procedures and Reports
Cases for promotion to Senior Lecturer are reviewed by the School’s Tenure and Promotion Committee with the addition of two Senior Lecturers, and cases for promotion to Teaching Professor are reviewed by the School’s Full Professor Promotion Committee with the addition of two Teaching Professors as described in our School’s Governance Document. These committees are charged with submitting a written report to the School faculty evaluating the candidate’s case for promotion. The committee report will include:

• an evaluation of the candidate’s classroom teaching consisting of a discussion of teaching metrics that include the numerical student evaluation scores, written comments, and peer reviews, as well as a narrative that provides an assessment of such factors as breadth, content, and innovation;
• an evaluation of pedagogical leadership (in the case of promotion to Teaching Professor)
• a summary and evaluation of the review letters (one that avoids long quotations from the letters themselves);
• an evaluation of service in relation to the case

The Promotion Committee report must conclude with a recommendation regarding promotion. The Promotion Committee report must provide a recommendation in both these areas—teaching and service—as well as an overall recommendation. The committee report will be made available to all tenured faculty of appropriate rank and senior lecturers for review prior to the School meeting. This is a confidential document that cannot be shared outside the eligible voting members prior to the faculty vote, and it is formally included in the dossier.

This evaluative report is regarded as a recommendation to the faculty and dean, and a vote of eligible faculty on teaching and service will be taken by confidential ballot. The Promotion Committee report should not be edited in response to the School’s deliberation and vote. In an explanatory letter included with the dossier and forwarded to the School Dean, the Associate Dean must contextualize the vote, capturing the range of assessments presented at the meeting of the voting-eligible faculty, so as to give later reviewers a better understanding of the grounds for both positive and negative votes.

15. School Meeting and Vote
The School will hold a meeting in the Fall semester to consider its promotion recommendation for the candidate, at which the Associate Dean presides. Voting members should review the dossier prior to meeting to discuss the committee report and the case. For promotions to Senior Lecturer, the voting members are the School’s tenured faculty, Senior Lecturers, and Teaching Professors.  For promotions to Teaching Professor, the voting members are Full Professors and Teaching Professors. As the Eskenazi School governance document stipulates, only faculty members with 0.5 FTE or greater are eligible to vote. An overall vote on promotion must be taken, as well as separate votes in both of the two performance areas, using campus-wide evaluative categories (excellent, very good, satisfactory/effective, unsatisfactory/ineffective).

Faculty members unable to attend the meeting are still eligible to vote if they have been “materially engaged” in the review process. Faculty members who are away from campus are encouraged to participate in the meeting and vote electronically; this vote must be cast within 24 hours of the meeting’s end and may be cast earlier by notification to the Associate Dean. No proxy votes are allowed. The School recommendation must be based on the ballots from three or more vote-eligible faculty members, not including the Associate Dean.

The Associate Dean is responsible for presiding at the meeting and ensuring that there is ample time to discuss the case; he or she should remind faculty it is their obligation to express their views whether positive or negative, but it is particularly important if they do not plan to support the case for promotion.

Following discussion, eligible faculty vote by secret ballot on whether to recommend promotion. Prior to the vote, the Associate Dean will review campus criteria and requirements for a vote in support of the candidate. In the category of teaching, the four options on the ballot are excellent, very good, effective, and ineffective.  In the category of service, the four options on the ballot are excellent, very good, satisfactory, and unsatisfactory. The Associate Dean must make clear at the meeting that in order to register a positive vote for promotion, the ballot must indicate at least excellence in teaching and satisfactory in service. All other votes will register as a negative vote. Faculty members have the right to abstain. Absences and abstentions do not register as a vote on the ballot. The Associate Dean’s letter should provide an account of any absences or abstentions.

When all ballots have been submitted, the votes will be tallied by an HR officer or other appropriate senior staff member as specified prior to the meeting, and the Associate Dean will upload the results to eDossier and inform the vote-eligible faculty members of the results. The anonymity of votes will be maintained, although the ballots will be kept in a signed and sealed envelope in case they are requested by the School’s Dean or the Provost. The Associate Dean does not vote on the School ballot, but rather records his or her vote as part of the AD’s review.

16. The Associate Dean’s Review
After the School faculty vote, the Associate Dean writes a separate statement. The statement details the contributions and evidence for promotion and includes a description of the faculty deliberations and an accounting of the discussions in the meeting that might explain the vote, particularly in the case of negative votes, abstentions, absentees and faculty who fail to vote. The Associate Dean also offers an independent recommendation regarding promotion; this recommendation is not bound by the faculty’s vote.

17. The Dean’s Review
Once the dossier is routed to the School’s Dean, the Dean prepares a letter evaluating the teaching and service, together with a recommendation (vote) on promotion. Before submitting the letter and recommendation, the Dean will make the dossier available to the Executive Dean of the College and will consult with the Executive Dean. Following consultation, the Dean will submit the letter and recommendation to the Vice Provost for Faculty and Academic Affairs by December.

18. Campus Review
After the dossier leaves the School, it goes to the Campus Promotion Advisory Committee by December 1.  The Campus Committee members also read the file and write a report evaluating the candidate’s teaching and service.  The committee members vote on whether the candidate should be promoted.  The Vice Provost for Faculty and Academic Affairs (VPFAA) prepares the final substantive evaluation and recommendation for the Provost and President’s executive-level review, who in turn make a recommendation to the Board of Trustees. A decision on promotion is communicated in campus mail once approved by the Board of Trustees prior to July 1.

19. Appeals
Negative promotion decisions may be appealed following campus and BFC procedures. 

https://vpfaa.indiana.edu/doc/pt-revised-review-guidelines.pdf

https://vpfaa.indiana.edu/policies/bl-aca-d22-grievance-review-faculty/index.htm

20. Degree of Candidate Access to File
According to Indiana University policy, all dossier materials including external reference letters must be shared with the candidate upon request at any time in the review process. Candidates may add new material to the dossier at any time during the review process and should do so if new information becomes available that would improve the case for promotion.

Eskenazi School Lecturer-Track Promotion Review Process

Mentors selected by Associate Dean (AD), Promotion Committee

Mentors assists candidate with statement and dossier preparation

↓

Candidate provides a list of external reviewers

↓

Promotion Committee assists Associate Dean to develop a list of external reviewers

↓

Dean approves list of external reviewers

↓

Candidate’s statement, c.v., and external review dossier are compiled and sent to external referees

↓

External letters uploaded to eDossier

↓

Candidate works with AD, Mentors, and SoAAD staff to prepare promotion dossier

↓

Promotion Committee reviews the candidate’s dossier and prepares a review statement

↓

All rank-eligible SoAAD faculty review dossier with external letters and Promotion Committee statement, and following a discussion casts ballot

(oversight by Associate Dean)

↓

HR officer tallies the vote and submits results to the Associate Dean

↓

Associate Dean prepares a letter contextualizing the faculty review plus independent recommendation, uploads documents into eDossier; routes eDossier to SoAAD Dean

↓

Dean prepares evaluative letter with recommendation;

Consultation with College Executive Dean

↓

Formal letter sent to candidate sharing the results of the School’s review

↓

VPFAA (Vice Provost for Academic Affairs) Advisory Committee reviews dossier, prepares evaluative letter with ballot count

↓

VPFAA prepares evaluative letter with recommendation

↓

Provost and President make recommendation

↓

Board of Trustees makes recommendation

Sample Timeline – Promotion to Senior Lecturer or Teaching Professor

(Timeline is reflected in the PDF version of the Governance Document - request a PDF from soaad@iu.edu)

A. Introduction

The evaluative categories below are intended to indicate the kinds of considerations committees at the School and University are likely to develop in evaluating dossiers for promotion and tenure.  And because the Eskenazi School of Art, Architecture + Design contains a diverse range of scholars, artists, and designers, the evaluative language below attempts to describe the wide variety of creative and scholarly activities that could lead to a positive promotion or tenure decision.

B. Process

1. Research: Creative Activity
Criteria and Standards of Achievement for Creative Activity: Studio artists and designers are expected to establish and develop a professional identity through exhibition and/or peer-reviewed publication of their work in credible regional, national and/or international venues. Candidates for tenure and/or promotion are encouraged to engage in a range of activities in support of the dissemination of their scholarly and creative activity. These may include prolific productivity, growth and evolution of the work, exploration of new structures and ideas, indications that the work is responsive to current discourse, and development of continued and sustained projects over extended periods of time. Completed and continuing work is relevant in the assessment of a candidate’s record. The question of an appropriate number of exhibitions/publications is difficult and dependent on the nature of the work, as well as the significance of each individual exhibition/publication venue. The School acknowledges the shifting landscape of contemporary visual arts and affirms the fact that the nature of creative activity and scholarly excellence will change across time and context.

Excellence in Creative Activity/Research is required for standard tenure and/or promotion cases in which research/creative activity is the basis. If research or creative work is the basis for tenure and promotion, the candidate must have achieved, or clearly be developing, a position of national and/or international leadership in a substantiated field.

1.1 For the Visual Artist and Designer, Scholarship is defined as creative activity or research, publications, presentations, exhibitions, and professional development.

1.2 Creative activity is by definition original research, and includes a wide variety of forms. Visual artists and designers strive to make successful works that pose challenging theoretical and aesthetic questions; that influence the thinking of their peers and the public; and that receive notice and interpretation in respected journals and publications appropriate to the artist’s or designer’s specific discipline.

1.3 Creative Activity/Research, Teaching, and Service may sometimes overlap. Also, with the emergence of new art forms, new systems of evaluating research in the visual arts may be utilized alongside the historically recognized systems.

1.4 Visual Artists, Designers and Educators recognize that the nature of creative work continually changes both conceptually and technologically. To assist reviewers, candidates for tenure and promotion should articulate the focus of their creative work and research, explaining the forms of its presentation.  Similarly, reports submitted by the candidate, the Promotion and Tenure Committee, and the Dean should elaborate the significance of a candidate’s accomplishments.  For example, an artist or designer would explain the importance of a special exhibition or of the galleries or museums where his or her work had been installed.  The general guideline is that the quality of work and selectivity of projects should offer a creative challenge, research opportunity, or learning experience that will enrich a faculty member’s professional development.

1.5 Creative Activity/Research includes activities that may be individual or collaborative and may be international, national, regional, and statewide. These activities include:

1. Solo exhibitions, two or three-person exhibitions and group exhibitions (i.e. in galleries, museums, corporate and other institutions, public installations, one-time performances, web exhibitions, non-traditional venues, etc.).
2. Juried, refereed, or curated group exhibitions associated with a respected art or design institution, an international or national conference or one that presents unusual subject matter.
3. Published documentation of creative works:
   • Published exhibition catalogs;
   • Published articles in journals;
   • Published reviews of creative work;
   • Books;
   • Refereed (i.e., peer-reviewed) publications;
   • Researched or evaluative articles written by the candidate;
   • Internet prominence: in today’s changing cultural landscape, art and design coverage has increased circulation and readership through web publications, discussion forums, blogs, and alternative media distribution avenues, etc.;
   • Self-published works.
4. Digital scholarship: research and creative activity via multi-modal, electronic and networked formats that may need to be reviewed in their original media;
5. New concepts of art or design or revisions of accepted theories. Originality of the work, acknowledged by nationally recognized peers;
6. Generation of new information or ways of using new information for artists or designers and/or their clients;
7. Independent design work: freelance, creative works made without a client (Outside and peer evaluation is essential to establish quality.);
8. Commissioned work;
9. Grants, prizes, awards, scholarships, residencies, and special opportunities;
10. Professional competitions (i.e. Regional, National and International Competitions either juried or invitational, National and International Art Fairs, professional association or organization competitions, and other art and/or design competitions);
11. Lectures, presentations, workshops, visiting artist or designer at national and international conferences and/or institutions;
12. Development of professional practice: evidence of research, course work or workshops that enhance the candidate’s professional practice and/or teaching;
13. Residencies and fellowships;
14. Organizing a conference and/or a panel;
15. Curating academic and/or public exhibitions;

1.6 Collaborations. The candidate should develop a written statement explaining the nature of the collaboration.

1.7 The significance of a venue may be determined by some of the following factors:

1. Location: international and national arts or design institutions in large centers are significant because of their selectivity, their potential audiences, and the quality and outreach of publicity.
2. An institution’s influence and reputation: an institution in a smaller setting with a widely respected reputation for excellence could be significant.
3. A curator’s or juror’s reputation: an important curator, juror or jury panel could make for a notable exhibition in a relatively obscure location.
4. Innovative work in emerging or new media might find an audience in alternative or relatively obscure venues that specialize in new media.

1.8 Documentation of candidate’s work produced since the candidate’s last promotion.

2. Research: Scholarship
If a candidate’s primary field of research is scholarship—that is, if the research consists largely or totally of critical, historical, or pedagogical publications intended to advance knowledge in a field of art, design, and/or merchandising – then, self-published work is typically not considered in the assessment of such primary research involving scholarly writing. Examples of typical appropriate scholarly publications include:

2.1 Published scholarly research including reports, reviews, and theoretical arguments;

2.2 Books, preferably published by an academic or commercial press of outstanding reputation. Books are considered “complete” when a finished manuscript has been reviewed by the publisher, a contract has been awarded. and the work is entirely out of the author’s hands, save for indexing the page proofs;

2.3 Peer-reviewed, full-length articles published in academic journals. Forthcoming articles can also be counted if editorial correspondence indicates their status as completed and scheduled for publication;

2.4 Chapters in peer-reviewed edited volumes, preferably with an academic press or appropriate commercial press;

2.5 State-of-the-art reviews of a discipline or field published in an academic journal;

2.6 Other texts that contribute to scholarly reputation, such as those that appear in refereed or otherwise professional online sites;

2.7 See also the considerations listed in this document for scholarly production that may not neatly fit into one of these categories.

To assist reviewers, candidates for tenure and promotion should articulate the focus of their research, explaining the forms of its presentation and publication. Similarly, reports submitted by the candidate, the Promotion and Tenure Committee, and the Dean should elaborate the significance of a candidate’s accomplishments. For example, a researcher would explain the importance of a special project where his or her work had been published. The general guideline is that the quality of work and selectivity of projects should offer an innovative and challenging research opportunity or learning experience that will enrich a faculty member’s professional development.

With recognition of the significant differences existing across disciplines and the growing importance of inter-disciplinary work, multi-authored texts may be evaluated as highly as individually authored ones so long as the contributions of each author are documented and equivalent.  Although books are regarded in many humanistic and artistic disciplines as requisite for tenure and/or promotion, this is not the case in the Eskanzi School.  Whether a scholar publishes a well-regarded book or a series of articles in reputable journals is less important than the work’s impact and, ideally, the position of leadership in a field that such publications demonstrate.  Candidates for tenure and promotion to Associate Professor should be developing such a reputation, while candidates for promotion to full professor must provide evidence that they have achieved such a position.

3. Teaching–Tenure Track
Criteria and Standards in Teaching: A teaching portfolio should reflect continued development of content and methodology in one’s own area of expertise as well as fostering initiatives that advance and disseminate pedagogies. Peer reviews of teaching conducted by senior colleagues are of the utmost importance. Standardized course evaluation scores are accepted as an important means of evaluating the candidate’s teaching abilities and should be considered in the context of school and college means, course level, curriculum and whether each course is a new preparation for the candidate.

Excellence in teaching is required for a promotion case where teaching is the basis. Teaching excellence requires the candidate to provide evidence of a significant national and/or international educational impact on their field outside of Indiana University (see Appendix 1). Teaching must always rise to the level of “Effective” for tenure and/or promotion when teaching is not the basis.

A candidate whose record indicates difficulty in teaching must document the steps that have been taken to address these difficulties, and the record must reflect, through student evaluations, peer evaluations and teaching enhancement activities, that improvement has occurred.

3.1 All Eskenazi School faculty must be effective educators.

https://intranet.college.indiana.edu/cpc/policies/evaulation-pedagogy.html

https://vpfaa.indiana.edu/policies/bl-aca-a3-non-tenure-track-instructional-appointments/index.html

3.2 Teaching and Educational Activities in the Eskenazi School.

Effective teaching typically requires significant personal mentorship, advising, project and production oversight, and attendance at exhibitions. These may include:

1. Supervising directed studies and individual student research and other teaching activities beyond assigned courses;
2. Supervising BFA, MS, and MFA theses and other exhibitions and projects;
3. Mentoring students/formal and informal critiquing of student work and planning higher education and professional development;
4. Supervising student productions, performances, installations, field trips, domestic and international study-away, and other group projects;
5. Presenting workshops, clinics, special lectures and demonstrations;
6. Maintaining facilities related to successful teaching;
7. Developing new courses or major course revision in response to curricular mandates;
8. Serving on thesis committees;
9. Sponsoring Individualized Major Program students;
10. Supervising graduate students from other departments.

3.3 Evidence of excellence in teaching may include:

1. Quality of student work;
2. Student course evaluations;
3. Student written evaluations;
4. Letters and commendations from students, alumni, colleagues, peers, and supervisors;
5. Peer reviews;
6. Student accomplishments, honors, awards (current and matriculated);
7. Teaching awards and nominations;
8. Curricula and/or program development;
9. Teaching publications;
10. Other evidence of excellence in teaching.

4. Teaching–Lecturer Track
Criteria and Standards in Teaching: Lecturers are promoted to Senior Lecturers based on excellence in classroom teaching.  Senior Lecturers are promoted to Teaching Professor based on excellence in teaching which combines excellence in classroom teaching with pedagogical leadership.

4.1 In addition to the activites of efffective teaching outlined in 3.2 above, Evidence of excellence in classroom teaching may include:

1. Quality of student work;
2. Student course evaluations;
3. Student written evaluations;
4. Letters and commendations from students, alumni, colleagues, peers, and supervisors;
5. Peer reviews;
6. Student accomplishments, honors, awards (current and matriculated);
7. Teaching awards and nominations;
8. Curricula and/or program development within the School;
9. Other evidence of excellence in teaching.

4.2 Evidence of Pedagogical Leadership may include:

1. Curricular Leadership
   1. Authorship and dissemination of quality teaching materials
   2. Authoring of textbooks and e-texts
   3. Sharing/disseminating pedagogical innovation/approaches and best teaching practices on a regional, national or international level through conference presentations, invited lectures, workshops, etc.
   4. Teaching-related awards/honors outside of the School
      
      
2. Research in Support of Learning and Teaching
   1. Receipt of grants for teaching innovations or improvements from/for institutions beyond the School
   2. Published articles, chapters or books on teaching and learning (peer-reviewed)
      
      
3. Service in support of Teaching
   1. Service on editorial boards or as an editor of academic or professional teaching-related journals
   2. Service as a peer reviewer/on review board for teaching-related publications, conferences, and competitions
   3. Program reviews outside of lecturer’s home unit
   4. Guest lectures on the regional, national or international level
   5. Leadership in teaching-related societies or organizations on the regional, national or international level
   6. Substantial service with a non-profit or government entity related to pedagogical expertise
   7. Invited lectures on the regional, national or international level
   8. Renowned or prestigious Service awards or other service-related recognition on the regional, national or international level
   9. Mentoring students in national and international competitions
      
      
4. Other evidence of pedagogical leadership

5. Service
Criteria and Standards in Service: Assessments of the candidate’s service should be considered in terms both of quantity and quality. Service to the university and its students is an integral part of professional activity. Professional and public service are indicators of professional excellence. Affiliation with and activity in professional organizations and other networks of academicians and professionals are integral to professional growth. 

Excellence in service is required for a tenure or promotion case where service is the basis and requires demonstrated excellence with national/international visibility and stature resulting from service activities. Service plays an important role in the promotion process when research/creative activity or teaching is the basis. The service expectation for all faculty increases as one moves through the ranks.

Service may include:
5.1 University: University councils, committees, and special assignments;
5.2 Campus: Campus councils, committees, and special assignments;
5.3 College of Arts and Sciences: COAS councils, committees, and special assignments;
5.4 School of Art, Architecture, and Design:

1. Student Advisement: academic, and professional;
2. School committees (as member, or especially as Chairperson), and including special assignments;
3. Participation in student affairs and related activities:
   • Portfolio reviews;
   • Open House panels and presentations;
   • Recruitment activities (i.e. high school visits, presentations);
   • Service at Matriculation, Commencement, Alumni Day (i.e. participation as presenters, faculty marshals, etc.) and participation in and support of School events such as alumni events, etc.;
   • Time commitments necessary for the writing of recommendations for students’ future careers;
   • Career advice to students and alumni.
4. Area Coordinator (see Area Coordinator responsibilities in Governance Document)

5.5 Participation in professional organizations and related activities

1. Serving on a board as officer, member or advisor for professional associations or organizations;
2. Reviewing tenure and promotion cases or participating in other external academic reviews;
3. Jurying exhibitions;
4. Serving as peer reviewer for publications, conferences, and competitions;
5. Serving on editorial boards of academic journals;
6. Curating public exhibitions;
7. Serving on scholarship, grant, or other award committees;
8. Professional consultation activities.

5.6 Service contributions may be supported by:

1. Committee reports (i.e. writing curricula, etc.);
2. Letters from colleagues, administrators, and committee members;
3. Documentation of special assignments by appropriate supervisors, and/or colleagues;
4. Supporting materials from professional organizations.

5.7 Other evidence of professional involvement

A. Introduction

Faculty in the Eskenazi School of Art, Architecture + Design, like all faculty at the University, are reviewed annually. Materials for review are typically submitted during early January at the start of the spring semester. These should be submitted to the Dean’s office at this time and should include (all can be attached to the DMAI):

• A completed DMAI (Digital Measures Activity Insight) form, that replaced the FAR (Faculty Annual Report) in 2016;
• An updated c.v.;
• Downloaded OCQ results;
• Any materials you feel support the reporting of our teaching and/or research (i.e. course syllabi, teaching materials, exhibition catalogues, published articles, etc.);
• Peer review documents (see Appendix 15: Peer Review Guidelines);
• A few paragraphs to include a discussion of the following:
  • Your three most meaningful achievements or initiative

B. Process

1. The Vice Provost for Faculty and Academic Affairs mandates annual reviews for faculty members at various stages of their appointment by identifying:

1.1 which faculty must receive an annual review
1.2 which faculty must be reappointed for 4th year and beyond
1.3 which faculty must be renewed for 5 year appointment
1.4 which faculty must be considered for promotion to full professor
1.5 which faculty must have the 3rd year review
1.6 which faculty must be reviewed for tenure and/or promotion

2. All SoAAD faculty members will receive an annual review.

2.1 The Dean reviews and writes for all full professors, plus the tenure probationary assistant professors. The Dean and Associate Dean consult regarding the review letters.
2.2 The Associate Dean reviews and writes for all associate professors. The Dean and Associate Dean consult regarding the review letters.
2.3 Promotion and Tenure committee reviews and writes for all people approaching tenure and promotion review. P&T Committee meets together with the candidates, discusses review process, issues, and discusses with candidates his/her progress toward tenure and promotion. P&T Committee submits letters to the Dean and Associate Dean who then consult regarding the review letters.
2.4 A special Promotion Committee consisting of all full professors is convened when necessary to review and write for all Associate Professors approaching promotion review. The Promotion committee meets together with the candidates, discusses review process, issues, and discusses with candidates his/her progress toward promotion. The Promotion committee submits letters to the Dean and Associate Dean who then consult regarding the review letters.
2.5 Faculty Advisory Board reviews and writes for all Lecturers and Senior Lecturers. The FAB committee meets together to talk, share review process, issues, questions, and discuss all NTT (lecturer, senior lecturer, academic specialist) The FAB committee submits letters to the Dean and Associate Dean who then consult regarding the review letters.
2.6 Area Coordinators review and write for Visitors and Adjuncts, each in their own area. The Area Coordinators submit letters to the Dean and Associate Dean who then consult regarding the review letters.

A. Introduction

In the Eskenazi School of Art, Architecture + Design, the expected terminal degree for faculty who are primarily involved in Studio Instruction for both undergraduate and graduate students is the Master of Fine Arts (MFA), the M.Arch, M.Des, or in some cases Ph.D. degree, in their area of expertise. Faculty whose primary responsibilities involve teaching undergraduates in the areas of Merchandising are expected to hold a master’s degree, and those teaching graduate students are expected to hold a doctorate degree in their area of expertise. Faculty not holding such degrees may present evidence of “tested experience”.

Within the Eskenazi School, adjunct faculty, professors of practice, or full-time faculty may be hired who do not hold a terminal degree in their area of expertise. As stipulated by the Higher Learning Commission, such faculty may be appointed if they possess professional or “tested” experience that constitutes the equivalent of a terminal degree.  Each academic unit at Indiana University is required to have a policy on this matter.

B. Merchandising

“Tested Experience” as the Equivalent of a Graduate Degree in Merchandising and Product Development in the Eskenazi School of Art, Architecture + Design

This policy statement outlines expectations in using “tested experience” as a possible criterion for hiring faculty.  It is written in response to the Higher Learning Commission’s (HLC) mandate that faculty teaching in undergraduate programs should hold a degree in their area of expertise that is one level higher than the degree students in their classes are pursuing. In effect, this means that faculty teaching undergraduates should possess a Master’s degree; however, the HLC guideline “Determining Qualified Faculty through HLC’s Criteria for Accreditation and Assumed Practices” (October, 2015) describes “tested experience” as a basis for determining “minimally qualified faculty”. “Tested experience” in the realms of merchandising and product development, for example, means that candidates should have a “breadth and depth of experience outside of the classroom in real world situations relevant to the discipline in which the faculty member would be teaching”.

The expertise areas for merchandisers, for example, would typically include:

• A minimum of five years of recent, full-time experience working in a commercial enterprise in which merchandising was central to their job description
• This experience needs to be delineated by relevant letters descriptive of the candidate’s employment and experience
• Knowledge of both traditional and emergent trends in merchandising, including online programs and new technologies
• Knowledge of relevant software used in the merchandising industry, such as for visual communication, product development, management, and/or data analysis
• Familiarity with current professional practices such as production, supply chains, management, and organizational practices

The final considerations for whether a candidate has sufficient “tested experience” are determined by whether the combination of experience and activity indicates that an individual has the same level of mastery over current developments in this area of inquiry as the general pool of applicants with MS or MA degrees (keeping in mind that MS/MA programs are few in number at this point, and may be oriented either towards business or design). If so, the applicant is appropriate for the position and can be considered.

C. Fashion Design

“Tested Experience” as the Equivalent of a Graduate Degree in Fashion Design in the Eskenazi School of Art, Architecture + Design

This policy statement outlines Eskenazi School of Art, Architecture + Design expectations in using “tested experience” as a possible criterion for hiring faculty.  It was written in response to the Higher Learning Commission’s (HLC) mandate that faculty teaching in undergraduate programs should hold a degree in their area of expertise that is one level higher than the degree students in their classes are pursuing.  In effect, this means that faculty teaching undergraduates should possess a Master’s degree; however, the HLC white paper “Determining Qualified Faculty through HLC’s Criteria for Accreditation and Assumed Practices” (2015) describes “tested experience” as a basis for determining “minimally qualified faculty”.   

“Tested experience” in the realm of fashion design, for example, means that candidates should have a “breadth and depth of experience outside of the classroom in real world situations relevant to the discipline in which the faculty member would be teaching”. 

The expertise for fashion designers, for example, would typically include:

• A minimum of five years of recent, full-time work experience in which fashion design (or a related field, such as textile design, soft goods, or product development) was central to their job description
• This experience needs to be delineated by relevant letters descriptive of the candidate’s employment and experience
• Knowledge of relevant software used by fashion designers, such as the Adobe Creative Suite, Lectra, Gerber, etc.
• Familiarity with current professional practices and the intersections between art, fashion design, and merchandising

This document applies only to faculty teaching studio-based courses, not to dress studies courses (which are more appropriately taught by faculty with graduate degrees). 

The final considerations for whether a candidate has sufficient “tested experience” are determined by whether the combination of experience and activity indicates that an individual has the same level of mastery over current developments in this area of inquiry as the general pool of applicants with an MA/MS or MFA degree.  If so, the applicant is appropriate for the position and can be considered.

D. Interior Design

“Tested Experience” as the Equivalent of a Graduate Degree in Interior Design in the Eskenazi School of Art, Architecture + Design

This policy statement outlines Eskenazi School of Art, Architecture + Design expectations in using “tested experience” as a possible criterion for hiring faculty.  It was written in response to the Higher Learning Commission’s (HLC) mandate that faculty teaching in undergraduate programs should hold a degree in their area of expertise that is one level higher than the degree students in their classes are pursuing.  In effect, this means that faculty teaching undergraduates should possess a Master’s degree; however, the HLC white paper “Determining Qualified Faculty through HLC’s Criteria for Accreditation and Assumed Practices” (2015) describes “tested experience” as a basis for determining “minimally qualified faculty”.   

“Tested experience” in the realm of interior design, for example, means that candidates should have a “breadth and depth of experience outside of the classroom in real world situations relevant to the discipline in which the faculty member would be teaching”. 

The expertise for interior designers, for example, would typically include:

• Professional licensure, such as NCIDQ, NCARB
• A minimum of five years of recent, full-time experience working in a commercial enterprise in which interior design was central to their job description
• This experience needs to be delineated by relevant letters descriptive of the candidate’s employment and experience
• Knowledge of relevant software used by interior designers and architects, such as the Adobe Creative Suite, Rhino, and Grasshopper
• Familiarity with current professional practices and state building codes

The final considerations for whether a candidate has sufficient “tested experience” are determined by whether the combination of experience and activity indicates that an individual has the same level of mastery over current developments in this area of inquiry as the general pool of applicants with MS or MA degrees (keeping in mind that MS/MA programs are few in number at this point, and that a BS or BFA is considered the professional point of entry). If so, the applicant is appropriate for the position and can be considered.

E. Studio Art and Design

“Tested Experience” as the Equivalent of a Graduate Degree in Studio Art and Design in the Eskenazi School of Art, Architecture + Design

This policy statement outlines Eskenazi School of Art, Architecture + Design expectations in using “tested experience” as a possible criterion for hiring faculty.  It is written in response to the Higher Learning Commission’s (HLC) mandate that faculty teaching in under-graduate programs should hold a degree in their area of expertise that is one level higher than the degree their students are pursuing.  In effect, this means that faculty teaching undergraduates should possess a Master’s degree; however, the HLC white paper “Determining Qualified Faculty through HLC’s Criteria for Accreditation and Assumed Practices” (2015) describes “tested experience” as a basis for determining “minimally qualified faculty”.

“Tested experience” in the realm of studio art and design means that candidates should have a “breadth and depth of experience outside of the classroom in real world situations relevant to the discipline in which the faculty member would be teaching”. 

The expertise areas for studio art, for example, would typically include:

• A minimum of five years of recent, high level experience working in a professional context in which studio art and design was central to their career endeavor
• This experience needs to be delineated by relevant letters descriptive of the candidate’s employment and experience
• Knowledge of both traditional and emergent trends in studio art and design, including, but not limited to studio practices, gallery and museum practices, design industry, cultural institutions and related creative industries
• Knowledge of relevant production skills, tools and technologies used in the studio art and design
• Familiarity with current professional practices such as studio management, job/exhibition application, grant writing, collaboration, and publication

The final considerations for sufficient “tested experience” are determined by a combination of the candidate’s experience and activity, which should indicate that an individual has the same level of mastery over current developments in this area of inquiry as the general pool of applicants with MFA degrees. If so, the applicant is appropriate for the position and can be considered.

F. Architecture

“Tested Experience” as the Equivalent of a Graduate Degree in Architecture in the Eskenazi School of Art, Architecture + Design

This policy statement outlines Eskenazi School of Art, Architecture + Design expectations in using “tested experience” as a possible criterion for hiring faculty.  It was written in response to the Higher Learning Commission’s white paper “Determining Qualified Faculty through HLC’s Criteria for Accreditation and Assumed Practices” (2015) describing “tested experience” as a basis for determining “minimally qualified faculty”.   

“Tested experience” in the realm of architecture, for example, means that candidates should have a “breadth and depth of experience outside of the classroom in real world situations relevant to the discipline in which the faculty member would be teaching”.  

The expertise for architects, for example, would typically include some, perhaps not all, of the following:

• Professional licensure
• A minimum of five years of recent, full-time experience working in a commercial enterprise in which architecture was central to their job description
• This experience needs to be delineated by relevant letters descriptive of the candidate’s employment and experience
• Knowledge of relevant technology, skills, techniques
• Familiarity with current professional practices and building codes

The final considerations for whether a candidate has sufficient “tested experience” are determined by whether the combination of experience and activity indicates that an individual has the same level of mastery over current developments in this area of inquiry as the general pool of applicants with M.Arch degrees. If so, the applicant is appropriate for the position and can be considered.

A. Introduction

For a variety of professional reasons, faculty members may decide to seek a split appointment in more than one academic unit.  It is generally advisable, however, for faculty not to divide their effort in more than two units, and in many academic units—the Eskenazi School of Art, Architecture + Design, for example—a faculty member must have at least 0.5 FTE (Full Time Effort) to be eligible to vote. 

B. Process

Split appointments generally require a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) that clearly delineates understandings of such arrangements.  And, although MOUs may differ from individual to individual, they typically have similar features and their approvals follow similar processes.  These include:

• A faculty member must express his or her interest in writing when seeking a split appointment. After obtaining the approval of the chair or dean of the unit in which the faculty member is serving, the request is sent to the administrator of the unit in which the person hopes to work. In the end, an MOU defining the terms of the split appointment must be approved by the academic leaders of both units (chairs or deans), the Executive Dean of the College of Arts and Sciences, the College Policy Committee, and the Vice Provost for Faculty and Academic Affairs. Should any of these parties object to the request, it cannot proceed.
• The “new” unit will employ vetting procedures specified by their governance documents in responding to the request.
• If both units agree, the resultant MOU must clarify the expectations of both units in regard to the precise nature of the FTE in each (0.5 in both, for example). It must also designate one unit as the “tenure or promotion home.”  Even if the faculty member has attained the rank of Professor, one unit must be identified as the “home unit.”
• The “home unit” is responsible for all annual reviews, promotion/tenure considerations, and grant applications with the second unit typically providing supplementary documentation of the faculty member’s work in it.
• Teaching and service obligations should be specified in the MOU (i.e., Professor Smith will teach two courses each academic year for each unit and will be given a service assignment in each unit).
• It is recommended that an MOU have starting and completion dates (i.e., 3-5 years). During the last year of this term, a review of the understanding should be conducted and either renewed, revised, or terminated.

A. Introduction

When the Dean of the School receives a request for affiliation or standing from a faculty member from outside the School, the matter will be brought before the Faculty Advisory Board for discussion.  Typically, the request for affiliation or FTE transfer will be accompanied by a current c.v. and teaching materials for review.  But, as is the case, in many units, the Dean and Faculty Advisory Board may request other kinds of evidence of the faculty member’s suitability for a formal relationship with the School.  These might include:

• Samples of scholarship and/or creative work;
• A full dossier of teaching materials, including student evaluations;
• A lecture or presentation by the faculty member to the School faculty;
• The teaching of a class;
• Letters of recommendation.

B. Process

All full-time School faculty members should be invited to review these and any other materials/presentations, and in the case of FTE transfers, the entire School faculty should vote on the request by secret ballot.  In the case of affiliation—because it involves no transfer and no teaching in the School--the “bar” for honoring the request is necessarily lower.  However, in such cases, a majority vote of the Faculty Advisory Board and the approval of the Dean will be required.

A. Introduction

The Director of Undergraduate Studies (DUS) is the primary administrator responsible for the organization and functioning of the undergraduate program in each department and School.

B. Process

The DUS works with faculty, undergraduate advisors, and students to administer unit and College policies concerning undergraduate degree programs and to serve as the liaison with the College on relevant matters as described below.

1. The DUS communicates new curricular and policy initiatives from the College and the campus to the Additionally, the DUS collects and forwards faculty questions and concerns about College policy concerning undergraduate education to the Associate Dean for Undergraduate Education.
2. The DUS takes the lead in developing new curricular proposals for majors, minors, and certificates and/or for revising standing degrees and degree This work is typically done in conjunction with the department’s undergraduate curriculum committee, the Assistant Dean for Undergraduate Curriculum, and the Associate Dean for Undergraduate Education. New degree programs can often take as much as a year to work their way through various College, campus, university, and state committees and commissions; the DUS should consult closely with the Assistant Dean for Undergraduate Curriculum to plan appropriately.
3. The DUS works with the faculty to develop and propose courses that meet College of Arts and Sciences Education (CASE) requirements, including courses that satisfy Breadth of Inquiry (BoI) distributions, Intensive Writing (IW), and Critical Approaches (CAPP). The DUS is responsible for ensuring that proposals conform to published criteria for such requirements.
4. The DUS works with the faculty to develop and propose courses that meet the campus-wide General Education Curriculum, as well as to ensure compliance with General Education assessment procedures, including the timely reporting of review materials to College and campus administrators.
5. The DUS is responsible for reviewing the monthly Remonstrance List and reporting any concerns to the Assistant Dean for Undergraduate Curriculum and the Associate Dean for Undergraduate Education.
6. The DUS is responsible for performing periodic review of courses in the Core Transfer Library (CTL), i.e., those courses taught on other IU campuses and schools in Indiana that fulfill specific requirements here.
7. The DUS oversees transfer credit issues for undergraduate students and evaluates course materials provided by students or the Office of Admissions to determine whether credit earned at another institution is equivalent to specific courses offered by the department (and whether such credit should be distributed or undistributed). Once a course is equated to an IUB course, all future transfers of that course receive the same designation, unless otherwise Where appropriate the DUS is advised to consult with faculty members who have special expertise in a subject matter and/or are primarily responsible for a particular course.
8. The DUS has the authority to determine whether exceptions to an undergraduate’s major, minor, or certificate are consistent with School curricular policies and In those instances where exceptions could set precedents with large implications for the degree, the DUS might consult with the UG Curriculum Committee. The DUS also has the authority to create categories of exceptions where the responsibility for making such exceptions can be delegated to the professional staff academic advisor(s) in the department.
9. The DUS monitors experiential education courses (e.g., internships, practica, field experience, undergraduate teaching assistantships, independent research, study or readings courses, service learning courses) including making sure that faculty members supervise the work done by individual students in these
10. The DUS administers the operation of undergraduate Honors, helping the unit attain the College’s goal of 10% of graduates doing so with departmental
11. The DUS serves as an advisor to faculty and instructors on issues of academic misconduct in undergraduate courses, requests to change grades, and other conflicts that arise between students and The DUS does not adjudicate such matters, but needs to be prepared to direct faculty to the appropriate offices in the College (e.g., the Assistant Dean for Academic Standards and Opportunities for academic misconduct issues) or the campus (e.g., the Dean of Students for issues of personal misconduct and disruptive students)
12. The DUS meets regularly with the professional staff academic advisor(s) to answer curricular and other questions. These conversations allow the DUS to share faculty priorities with the advisor(s), and allow the advisor(s) to communicate information about students’ experience with the curriculum/department. In this way, course sequencing issues, scheduling conflicts, etc. can be addressed by the department on an ongoing basis. The DUS is also responsible for working with professional staff academic advisors to ensure that degree maps, major guides, and other departmental promotional materials are accurate and up to date.
    

    That said, the DUS does not supervise the professional staff advisors who report directly to the College’s Director of Advising. However, the relationship between professional staff academic advisors and the School is crucial to the success of a department’s undergraduate program and, accordingly, the DUS is asked to contribute to the annual performance review of each advisor. To facilitate this process the DUS is encouraged to be in close contact with the Director of Advising with issues and concerns related to the advisor’s performance.

13. The DUS is responsible for representing the School in planning and attending undergraduate events such as graduation ceremonies, honors receptions, career fairs, and the College Expo. The DUS is also responsible for enlisting faculty representation at these and other School, College, and university-wide undergraduate events.
14. The DUS is responsible for the timely delivery of copy for the Undergraduate Bulletin to the Assistant Dean for The DUS is also responsible for proofreading final copy of the Bulletin prior to publication.
15. The DUS is expected to be in residence during the months of his/her S/he is also responsible for attending DUS meetings (typically one or two a semester) called by the Associate Dean for Undergraduate Education; if the DUS cannot attend such meetings an appropriate proxy should be designated by the School.

Taken from College of Arts and Sciences Policy

A. Introduction

The guidelines below are intended to clarify the processes and procedures of conducing faculty search and screen. Search and screen committees will be formed as described in the Governance Document.

B. Process

The search and screen procedure will include the following stages:

1. The Search and Screen Committee composes the position announcement including various text forms for a range of publication venues as necessary and desired.
2. The Committee identifies venues for the announcement, within the budget set by the Dean.
3. The Dean’s office approves the announcement text.
4. The HR officer files a “position vacancy eDoc”.
5. The HR officer coordinates faculty candidate applications through PeopleAdmin.
6. The Committee reviews applications, and conducts telephone and Skype pre-interviews; the Committee may also choose to call referents. If referents provide information by phone, they should be informed that we may also be asking for letters of recommendation in the near future.
7. As area experts, the Committee recommends the top three-five candidates for the Dean’s review and approval. Place names in priority order and forward to the Dean and the HR officer with c.v. attached.
8. With the Dean’s approval, the HR officer files a “request to interview eDoc” for the top two finalists; a third candidate’s campus visit may occur as needed; HR officer makes sure the letters of recommendation are requested for all top candidates (for backup purposes) giving them two weeks to respond; Search Chair contacts references personally to request the letters for the two finalists, noting they will receive an electronic request as well. (THE eDoc PROCESS MAY TAKE TWO WEEKS TO COMPLETE).
9. The Committee contacts the two top candidates to identify potential dates for visits; use Letter Template #1 developed by HR for appropriate language.
10. After the “interview eDoc” has been approved by OVPFAA, the Search Chair contacts the two finalists to invite them for an interview; use Letter Template #2 for appropriate language.
11. The Committee works with the HR officer and support staff to plan the campus visits, transportation, hotel, presentation dates, and related hospitality events.
12. All Eskenazi School faculty are encouraged to participate with the candidate visits and presentations.
13. All Eskenazi School faculty who participated with candidate searches are encouraged to submit post-visit on-line feedback to the Committee.
14. The Committee considers all feedback, casts their “vote to recommend” action, and prepares a statement about the candidates for full-faculty consideration.
15. All full time Eskenazi School faculty (Tenure-line faculty, Lecturers, Senior Lecturers and Academic Specialists) who participated with candidate searches, cast their “vote to recommend” action; the HR officer tallies the votes and submits the results to the Dean.
16. The Associate Dean prepares a separate statement and “vote to recommend” action; and submits it to the Dean by April 1.
17. The Dean selects the final candidate.
18. The HR officer files a “request to hire eDoc”.
19. The Dean initiates an offer, conducts all negotiations, and coordinates the offer letter with the HR officer by May 1.

A. Introduction

Area Coordinators will lead their committees in discussion of opportunities for new courses and new degree objectives as well as course and degree objective revisions.

B. Process

As consideration for curriculum revision builds, the process for realizing change will include the following stages:

1. The Area Coordinator works with area faculty to explore and develop curricular changes; include multiple ACs if interdisciplinary action is being proposed
2. The Area Coordinator seeks the advice of the Executive Director of Academics and Director of Undergraduate Studies
3. A Curricular proposal goes to the Eskenazi School’s Undergraduate Curriculum Committee (UCC) for consideration and feedback: contact is made with other departments or schools as needed; the proposal returns to the Area Coordinator for revision as needed
4. The Area Coordinator prepares revisions and updates with faculty as needed; non-structural changes such as course title, content, credit modifications may be implemented after approval by UCC
5. The Area Coordinator prepares a proposal for structural changes, degree changes, name changes for consideration by FAB
6. FAB reviews and comments on the proposal; provides suggestions and edits; returns the proposal to the Area Coordinator for revisions as needed
7. Final version is voted on by FAB
8. Final FAB approved version goes to the full faculty for review and vote
9. Final faculty approved version goes to the Dean for approval
10. Final Dean approved version goes to the College Committee for Undergraduate Education (CUE)
11. Degree changes, name changes, new degree objectives and other structural changes move through the IU campus and university committees for approval, including Campus Curriculum Committee, the Academic Leadership Council, the Office of the Provost, the Board of Trustees
12. New degrees, new degree objectives and significant structural changes, as above, require approval by Indiana Commission for Higher Education.

A. Introduction

Annual salary merit evaluations will be based on faculty accomplishments over the preceding three years, with emphasis on the immediately preceding year. The goal of this policy is to ensure that comparable achievements are rewarded equally despite year-to-year fluctuations in the overall salary pool and in faculty productivity.  The Eskenazi School’s Faculty Advisory Board (FAB) will advise the Dean regarding the allocation of resources for merit salary increments. The Faculty Advisory Board will be elected by the faculty following the guidelines established in the Governance Document. To perform its duties effectively, FAB needs to be apprised of the basis and process by which the University, the College, and the Dean’s office makes budget allocations. FAB should receive from the Dean summary data on such allocations. Merit salary reviews are not included in tenure and promotion dossiers.

B. Process

Determination of merit will be based on the degree to which each faculty member displays evidence of performance in all areas of his/her responsibilities. As such, the determination will involve consideration of quality as well as quantity.

Performance weighting will be as follows:

• Tenured and tenure track faculty responsibilities include Research = 50%, Teaching = 30%, Service = 20%;
• Lecturers and senior lecturer responsibilities include Teaching = 65%, Service = 35%;
• Academic Specialist responsibilities include Service = 100%.

Considerations will be made for leadership positions and special responsibilities.

To determine merit, accomplishments in the categories of responsibility will be evaluated on a four point scale:

• excellent = 4;
• very good= 3;
• effective/satisfactory=2;
• needs improvement = 1;
• ineffective/unsatisfactory =0.

The overall score for each faculty member is the average of these scores calculated according to the above weighting using the Annual Performance Review scoring sheet.

The Faculty Advisory Board will have access to all faculty members’ annual review letter, DMAI, c.v., and student evaluations (as available). The committee will hold an open discussion of each faculty member’s performance and review letter. Following the discussion, the committee members will complete a Faculty Performance Review score sheet for each faculty member. The score sheets will be collected and tallied by an HR staff member. On the basis of his/her relative score, a faculty member will be assigned to one of the following categories: highest, middle, lowest.

The committee will present their suggested ranking to the Dean, who will review the recommendation. The Dean will assign salary increments taking into consideration equity issues and cost of living increases. The Dean will meet with the committee to inform them of his/her decision. The Dean will make the merit salary raises known to each faculty member. Individual faculty members may appeal merit raises by letter or email to the Dean.

A. Salary Equity Review Background

The Eskenazi School of Art, Architecture + Design is committed to equity in faculty salaries as determined on the basis of comparison with disciplinary peers in Bloomington who are at an equivalent stage in their career and have achieved similar disciplinary accomplishments. Annual review and merit assessment are conducted for each faculty member in the school in accordance with written policies.   In the Eskenazi School, there is a process for assessing the activity in and impact of research, teaching, and service as the primary bases for ensuring fairness in faculty compensation.   This process includes the judicious review and approval by the School Dean on recommendations for annual salary increases.  Over the longer term and to the extent possible, faculty members within the same discipline and with similar years in rank who have equivalent scholarly and pedagogical achievements should receive similar salaries and more meritorious faculty within the discipline should receive higher salaries.

Generally, faculty vote on the policies and metrics used for the annual merit review of faculty performance and for processes regarding the recommendation for salary increases at the school level.  The annual review process can lead to modest differences between essentially comparable faculty due to a variety of factors, including, timing differences in scholarship between faculty and year-to-year variation in the pay-raise percentage.  The equity process is not meant to address these individual differentials, which should be balanced by school processes over the course of several years.  The equity process is meant to address larger systemic differentials that have persisted for more than several years and where the gap is sufficiently large that it would be difficult for the regular salary merit review process to fully address the pay disparity with the annual salary pool.   In such instances, if a faculty member is not satisfied with the assessment outcome under current governance procedures, the faculty member is entitled to seek an equity review within the School.

The School’s equity review process focuses on an analysis of salary trends, scholarly performance, multiple indicators of teaching excellence, and the national market among faculty within a disciplinary cohort at a comparable stage in the career cycle.  A minimum of two and, preferably, three faculty comparators need to be identified by the faculty member seeking an equity review. Compensation for administrative service, retention in response to an outside offer, and salary compression due to recruitment are outside the boundaries of an individual equity review.

B. Process

The Dean will issue an annual call for equity petitions in the fall semester with reviews occurring in the spring semester. A faculty member who believes that an inequity over an extended period exists should first discuss the matter with the Associate Dean. Ideally, the Associate Dean and faculty member will agree about the names of three faculty comparators. If three faculty comparators cannot be identified within the Eskenazi School, then comparators may be identified from other departments with a similar disciplinary emphasis. It is the Associate Dean’s responsibility to gather current CVs and recent merit-ranking data for the three comparators and the petitioning faculty member. The faculty member and Associate Dean submit independent rationales (one to two pages) for an equity adjustment including an explanation of why the School’s merit policy failed to fairly reward the faculty member for their achievements. 

All documents pertaining to an equity case are collected by the Associate Dean who will determine if the case is considered Undisputed or Disputed.  An Undisputed case shows clear evidence of agreement in all critical elements of the rationales for an equity adjustment from the Associate Dean and the faculty member. Undisputed cases are submitted by the Associate Dean directly to the Dean with a recommendation for the level of salary adjustment.

Disputed cases show clear evidence of disagreement or divergence between one or more critical elements of the rationales for an equity adjustment from the Associate Dean and faculty member.  In some cases, disputed cases can originate from the recommendation of the Vice Provost of Academic Affairs and/or the Office of Affirmative Action.  Disputed cases are submitted to Faculty Advisory Board for review and recommendation.  The Dean serves as the chair of the FAB and makes a final determination for or against salary adjustment on the basis of equity. 

C. Sample Timeline

A call for equity proposals will be issued in the fall semester.  

1. First Week in November: Required notification by faculty member to Associate Dean.
2. First Week in December: Required documentation submitted to Associate Dean from faculty member seeking an equity review. It is the Associate Dean’s responsibility to compile the following documents:
   1. A current c.v. for the faculty member and 3 comparators identified by the faculty member.
   2. Recent merit-ranking data for the comparators and the petitioning faculty member.
   3. Teaching evaluations and DMAI reports over the past three years for the petitioning faculty member.
   4. A rationale (two to three pages) for an equity adjustment, including an explanation of why the School’s merit policy failed to reward the faculty member for their achievements.
   5. It is the faculty member’s responsibility to submit a rationale (one to two pages) from the faculty member for an equity adjustment.
3. First week in February: Decisions on undisputed cases.
4. First week in March: Decisions on disputed cases.

Please note: faculty members may only submit a petition for a salary equity review once every three years irrespective of the decision.

Students can receive academic credit for internships or other types of employment outside the university that contribute to the student's learning experience, have identifiable learning objectives and deliverables, and that are monitored by faculty. The following policies apply to such internships:

A. Credit Hours Earned. Internships can be taken "for credit," typically for 1-3 credit hours. For-credit internships generally require 50 hours of work for each credit hour earned. Given that an internship may lack the focused instruction of a classroom or may be repetitive in nature, it is recommended that no more than 3 total credit hours be earned for an internship experience, even when over 150 hours, although exceptions can be granted where warranted and approved by the Dean. Credit can only be given during the term when the internship is being done.

B. Compensation. According to the Fair Labor Standards Act (April 2010), student interns generally must be compensated for the work they perform. Unpaid internships are allowable under the FLSA, but the requirements for such should be carefully reviewed.

C. Grade Mode

1. Letter Grade. If taken for a grade, the method for determining the course grade needs to be determined in advance via a course syllabus or similar agreement made between student and instructor. This agreement should address the nature and term of the experience, learning goals, deliverables, and the method for determining a final course grade. Deliverables may include student assessment of the experience, employer assessment of the student, presentation of work completed, written assignments, etc. as required to accurately assess the work under the letter grade mode.
2. Credit/No. An internship can also be taken "credit/no," which provides the student earned credit hours if credit is granted but no letter grade. In such instances, deliverables can be reduced but should minimally include proof that the internship is fully completed and that the employer is satisfied with the level of work. The instructor is obligated to verify from the employer that the student has successfully completed the internship in the absence of other deliverables that would more directly tie to the award of a letter grade.
3. S/F. Most internships are taken for a “Satisfactory” or “Fail” designation, meaning that successful completion of adequate hours and work are confirmed through an employer/supervisor evaluation, and students may be asked to complete various forms of self-reporting and self-evaluation that differ by area.
4. Faculty Supervision. Academic internships must be formally supervised by a faculty member on a per student/per credit hour basis. The instructor of record is determined in the same manner as all course assignments are determined, following discussion among the area faculty, DUS, and Enrollment Manager. Faculty will be compensated for each student they supervise at a rate of $175 per credit hour. * To maintain pedagogical quality the maximum number of students per faculty member is set at fifteen total.
5. Compensation: To receive compensation per credit hour faculty must ensure a quality academic experience for the students by: 1) Interacting with students on a consistent basis. This should include weekly touch-base emails/phone calls/video calls with the student. 2) Connecting with the student’s supervisor at the beginning, middle, and end of the internship experience, and more if possible, 3) Creating a signed contract agreement between the faculty member and student(s) which will spell out expectations for the student(s) to be successful and to receive credit. This can take the form of a syllabus. 4) Ensuring employer evaluation.

*subject to university policies.

All international internships must follow Office of Overseas Studies protocols before students leave the country, i.e. benefit paperwork, travel authorization forms, etc.