Faculty Evaluation Plan, Department of Film and Media Studies

• major creative activity at a national or international professional venue; 
• the conclusion of a long-term project such as the completion or publication of a monograph, edited volume, or multi-year artistic work
• the creation of multiple creative works 
• the submission, acceptance or publication of multiple articles 
• multiple national or international presentations, workshops, or master classes 
• invited keynote address or extended artistic residency 
• the recognition of one's scholarship through major awards or national attention
• the reception of highly competitive external awards or fellowships

Very Good research meets the standards of Good research, with the addition of:

• one or more instances of a major creative work 
• submission, acceptance and/or publication of major academic research 
• invited or competitive presentations, workshops or master classes 
• seeking highly competitive external grants
• significant progress on any long-term project such as securing a book contract or pursuing and receiving a commission for a creative work
• submitting a book prospectus and sample chapters to a press 

Good research meets the standards of Marginal research, with the addition of:

• submission, acceptance and/or publication of scholarly and creative research (major or minor)
• presentations, workshops or master classes in an external venue
• internal or external funding applications; 
• demonstrated progress on any long-term project.

Marginal research includes the following:

• Minimal or inadequate progress on a long-term major project 
• Inadequate efforts to submit scholarly and/or creative research for publication or presentation
• Inadequate efforts towards presentations, workshops, or master classes at national conferences or professional venues

Poor research is represented by a calendar year in which none of the following are present: 

• artistic work (major or minor)
• submission, acceptance and/or publication of academic research (major or minor)
• presentations, workshops or master classes in an external or KU venue
• demonstrated progress on any long-term major project.

Service

The appropriate evaluation of service effort will be evaluated in light of rank and according to the expectations described in the Department’s Promotion and Tenure Guidelines. The amount and type of service typically varies by rank. Some roles, such as leading a college committee, are typically undertaken by tenured faculty only. In the case of junior faculty, service should be limited and managed according to the faculty member’s progress towards tenure and upon mentor advice. Effort in excess of position/rank expectations should be duly recognized.

For purposes of annual evaluation, service activity is designated as “light,” “medium” or “heavy” according to such factors as time spent, complexity, effort, role, scope, and significance. 

Excellent service meets the standards of very good service at the department level, with the addition of one or more instances of “heavy” service at the college, university, professional, and/or community level 

Very Good service, in addition to standard attendance at department meetings, is demonstrated by assuming a leadership role in some aspect of department service and/or by multiple instances of “light” and “medium” service at the college, university, professional, and/or community level. 

Good service is demonstrated by assuming departmental committee service in addition to standard attendance at Department meetings; it may also include one or more instances of “light” service at the college, university, professional, and/or community level. 

Marginal service is reflected by standard required attendance at department meetings without assuming committee and/or leadership responsibilities and an absence of evidence of college, university, or professional and/or community service. 

Poor service is reflected by low attendance at department meetings without assuming committee and/or leadership responsibilities and an absence of evidence of college, university, or professional and/or community service.

Tenure-Track faculty will be assigned weightings of 40, 40, and 20 to the responsibilities of teaching/advising, research, and service respectively for the evaluation; the exception would be those faculty who have a different DAE that has been negotiated and agreed upon by the faculty member and chair and approved by the Dean and/or the Office of Faculty Affairs. If a faculty member has an official “allocation of effort” that is different than the normal 40:40:20, these different percentages will be used to evaluate the faculty member’s contributions to the University and to later recommended the awarding of any merit.

Teaching Professor faculty will be assigned weightings of 70, 10, and 20 to the responsibilities of teaching/advising, research, and service respectively for the evaluation. Teaching Professor faculty are not eligible for Differential Allocation of Effort, but because teaching professors engage in contracts for term allocation of effort can be adjusted within university parameters as part of the contracting process.

Procedure

The department chair (ex officio) and the faculty evaluation committee will review faculty portfolios and then meet to discuss each portfolio, determine ratings of “excellent,” “very good,” “good,” “marginal,” and “poor,” and draft narrative evaluations that justify the ratings. Discussions focus on the overall quality and quantity of each faculty member’s accomplishments in light of their teaching record, research program, and service contribution and career stage, as well as the immediate public impact of their contributions to the Department and University, and the broader significance such contributions hold at national and international levels. 

Members of the Faculty Evaluation Committee are expected to be thoroughly familiar with the protocols of the college governing promotion and tenure as well as with the unit protocols described in department documents.

3. Differential Allocation of Effort

The Department of Film and Media Studies expects faculty to devote equal attention to teaching and research. When evaluating faculty performance, the department applies the weights of 40% for teaching, 40% for research, and 20% for service to the University, community, and profession. These weights are the same for all tenure-system faculty, lecturers and teaching professors will have different allocations of effort as noted above in this document. 

Changes in the standard allocation of effort for an individual faculty member over a set period of time can be initiated by the tenured faculty member or department Chair. These changes can be short- or long-term and must correspond to changes in work-load not just evaluation criteria. Reasons for alterations can include short-term items such as funded research or longer term career-stage issues. Faculty members are not allowed to reduce their teaching or research to less than 10% on DAE agreements. Departmental needs take precedent over individual needs when making decisions to alter a faculty member’s allocation of effort; such redistribution must be consistent with the best interests of the unit. The most likely occasion for consideration of such changes is in discussion between the Chair and the individual faculty member following annual performance evaluations, or sooner so that appropriate arrangements may be made at the unit level for the coverage of course offerings. Changes in faculty effort are to be negotiated and agreed upon before the start of the next academic year. Any individualized changes in faculty allocation of effort will be negotiated with the Chair and documented in the faculty member's personnel file.

For short-term DAE agreements (one academic year or less), the DAE is ultimately approved by the unit director or chairperson, with a copy of this endorsement sent to the contact associate dean. For long-term DAE agreements (beyond one academic year), approval must also be sought from the appropriate contact dean in the college, and be approved by Vice Provost for Faculty Affairs. All DAEs are reported annually to the College Dean’s Office. Agreements for long- term DAEs must be reviewed every three years, although either the faculty member or chairperson/director may request an earlier review in response to changed circumstances or performance. At that time, the agreement may be revised, terminated, or continued.

The selection among these options should be made following the guidelines and process for approval of long-term DAEs contained in the University Policy on Differential Allocation of Effort (DAE).

Annual Evaluation System

1. Overview

The Department of Film and Media Studies will conduct an annual evaluation of its faculty that will yield information for departmental planning, merit salary decisions, progress toward tenure and promotion and/or tenure review, differential allocation of effort, and strategies for renewal or development. The Department's criteria for evaluation and promotion and tenure will serve as the standard by which accomplishments are evaluated.

Evaluation of each faculty member is conducted annually by the FMS Faculty Evaluation Committee (FEC), made up of the department chairperson (non-voting ex officio) and three tenured or tenure-track faculty members, as described in the department’s by-laws.

2. Annual Report Preparation

Each faculty member is responsible for compiling an annual report with supporting materials that document both quantity and quality of effort in teaching/advising, scholarship, and service for the previous calendar year. These materials are submitted to the Faculty Evaluation Committee (FEC) by late January/early February. This time frame allows for sufficient time for the written evaluation report to the faculty member and the opportunity for discussion of the report prior to the timeline established for merit salary decisions. In classifying your work as major and minor, please bear in mind the definitions in the Department’s Promotion and Tenure Guidelines.

3. Annual Evaluation of Feedback Process

Each faculty member is provided with a copy of the Faculty Evaluation Committee summarizing their evaluation. Faculty have the right to meet with the FEC to review the evaluation in case of disagreement. At this time, the faculty member also has the right to add additional information, as appropriate, to the evaluation record. The FEC will announce to all faculty the days and times the committee is available for this “check-back” procedure.

After all disagreements have been discussed and the FEC’s evaluations are finalized, the FEC submits its evaluations to the Chair. The Chair will finalize the evluation in a letter to the faculty member. The letter will also inform the faculty member of the opportunity to schedule a meeting with the Chair to discuss their annual evaluation.

In cases where improvement in a faculty member’s performance is warranted, the Chair will indicate, in specific terms, in writing, where the faculty member’s evaluations are unsatisfactory (i.e., marginal and poor.) Although the faculty member is under no obligation to do so, within two weeks of the date of the distribution of the evaluation letters, the faculty member may request a conference with the Chair of the Department to discuss their annual evaluation. Following this conference, and upon formal written request to the Chair, a faculty member may meet with the FEC to discuss his or her evaluation and may request a reconsideration of the evaluation by the committee. A copy of the written evaluation summary is then maintained in the faculty member’s personnel file.

4. Post-tenure Review and Integration into the Annual Evaluation Process

This section includes information for faculty members undergoing Post-tenure Review.

• FMS has elected to combine the post-tenure review with the annual evaluation given that the post-tenure review is conducted by the same committee that conducts annual evaluations. Thus, the post-tenure review and annual evaluation are combined into a single process. The committee will recommend outcomes in accordance with the unit’s policy.
• The Post-tenure Review committee will provide a copy of their report to the faculty member, who may submit a written response for inclusion in the post-tenure review file before it is forwarded to the chair for his or her review. If the chair agrees with the report, he or she will indicate that agreement in writing to the faculty member and place a copy in the post-tenure review file. If the chair disagrees with the committee’s evaluation, he or she shall explain the reasons for any disagreement in writing, with a copy to the faculty member and the committee.
• Results of hte post-tenure review assessment are used to determine annual evaluation outcomes are outlined below in #5.
• Additional information can be found in the Unit’s Post-tenure Review Policy.

5. Outcomes of the Annual Performance Evaluation

The evaluation process acknowledges faculty accomplishments or shortcomings and makes them matters of record. It also may initiate the planning of individual career development and developmnet of the Department. It may assist in identifying opportunities for faculty improvement and renewal. It provides annual and cumulative data for merit-salary recommendations, sabbatical-leave and grant applications, tenure and promotion decisions, post-tenure review, and reassignments of responsibilities. Finally, it provides documentation that may be used, at extremes, in support of either recognition or dismissal.

Procedures for developing performance improvement plans

Under the University's post-tenure review policy, if the chair ascertains that a faculty member's performance seems to be failing to meet academic responsibilities, the administrator and the faculty member shall develop a written plan of methods to improve the faculty member's performance. The plan may include appropriate provisions for faculty development, such as campus opportunities for faculty continued renewal and development, or for other appropriate interventions. The chairperson may call upon the University administration for assistance in constructing such a plan, including provision for additional resources, where needed. A faculty member may reject any plan recommended to aid performance levels, but the faculty member must understand that a sustained overall failure to meet academic responsibilities is a basis for dismissal.

Responsibility for meeting departmental standards rests with the individual, but the Chair must assist faculty members to construct specific development and remediation programs. Faculty programs vary according to specialty and need. Faculty members required undertaking development activities as an outgrowth of the evaluation process will design a general strategy with the Chair of the Department. Together, they choose both a specific program and a departmental mentor to oversee the program and consult closely with the faculty member who has embarked upon it.

Procedures for addressing failure to meet academic responsibilities

If a faculty member has been informed that his/her performance still fails to meet academic responsibilities, the faculty member may request a review by the College, which will issue a non-binding recommendation on the appropriateness of this conclusion to the unit administrator. The administrator may change the evaluation after receiving the committee's decision, or may choose not to do so. In any event, the report of the committee will become a permanent part of the faculty member's personnel file within the academic unit and shall be available to the faculty member.

Department chairs (Program Directors) shall consult annually with the dean, and the dean shall consult annually with the Provost on the progress of any faculty member who fails within this category of failure to meet academic responsibilities.

Sustained failure to meet performance expectations

Based upon the judgment that there has been a sustained failure to meet academic responsibilities, the Dean may recommend to the Provost that a tenured faculty member be dismissed. In making this determination, the Dean shall consider the nature of the failure to meet academic responsibilities, the reason or reasons for this failure, the number of years that the faculty member has failed to meet academic responsibilities, the level of discernible improvement in the faculty member's performance after being notified of any failure in performance, and the extent to which the faculty member has complied with the terms of any plan developed to improve the faculty member's performance. The Provost will review the case and, if the Provost agrees with the Dean's recommendation, the Provost will recommend to the Chancellor that the faculty member be dismissed. If the Chancellor agrees and recommends dismissal, this recommendation will go to the Faculty Rights Board.

Should any recommendation to dismiss be brought against a tenured faculty member based exclusively or in part on grounds of sustained failure to meet academic responsibilities, both the report(s) of the review committee(s), the annual written evaluation(s) of the unit administrator concerning the faculty member, any outside evaluations, and any germane written response by the faculty member to the charges shall be made available to the Faculty Rights Board.

6. Faculty Development Initiatives

The university supports untenured and/or junior faculty through a variety of  programs. Programs and support include applying for grants for the improvement of teaching; information on paper presentations; attending conferences; and assisting in the application process for research scholarships and grants. For a complete, detailed listing of the categories see Faculty Development Initiatives on the FMS website.

Appendices

Appendices A – Categories for Annual Faculty Performance Evaluation Review

Faculty Evaluation Categories for Annual Faculty Performance Evaluation Review

Faculty: Please make a list of your activities since your last annual evaluation. Use the categories and subcategories below, adding any relevant data not covered. A brief summary of what each faculty member considers his or her main accomplishments in teaching, research, and service is useful to the evaluation committee in its deliberations. The following list is to remind you of possible activities that should be brought to the attention of the committee, who will evaluate your work.

A. Teaching Activities

1. Courses taught

a. Service courses

b. Other undergraduate courses

c. Lower-level graduate courses

d. Upper-level graduate courses

e. Class evaluation scores

2. Advising

a. Freshmen-sophomores (include numbers)

b. Undergraduate majors (include numbers)

c. Graduate students (include numbers)

3. Examinations

a. Ph.D. orals

b. M.A. orals

c. Contributions to Ph.D. written exams

d. Contributions to M.A. written exams

4. Independent Study

a. Undergraduate

b. Graduate

c. Dissertation direction (chair of committee)

d. Dissertation committees (membership)

5. Course Supervision

a. Coordination or direction of several sections of a course

b. Supervision/training of GTAs

6. Other

B. Research/Creative Work

1. Results of research/creative work

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

2. Research/creative work in progress

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

3. Contribution of research/creative work to the university, profession, and beyond 

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

4. Research/Creative Work Activities

a. Publications

i. Published books from scholarly presses

ii. Films, videos, and media, including contributions in key creative positions

iii. Published refereed articles

iv. Scholarly media and databases (note if refereed)

v. Published articles in un-refereed journals, working papers

vi. Published solicited articles or solicited creative work

vii. Other published articles in conference proceedings and other books

viii. Published reviews

ix. Articles reprinted, translated, etc.

x. Other publications [pamphlets, reports, bibliographies]

xi. Work in progress

b. Research

i. External research/creative grants awarded

ii. International research/creative work grants awarded

iii. Research/creative work grants submitted

iv. Theses, dissertations, and privately circulated unpublished misc.

c. Conferences and professional meetings

i. Papers/creative work presented at professional meetings

ii. Attendance at professional meetings, conferences, film festivals

d. Other

C. Service

1. Service Activities

a. Departmental

i. Administrative duties (e.g., chair of a standing committee, associate chair)

ii. Committees

iii. Other

b. College

i. Administrative duties (e.g., director of a program)

ii. Committees

iii. Other

c. Graduate Studies

i. Administrative duties

ii. Committees

iii. Other

d. University-wide

i. Administrative duties

ii. Faculty Senate

iii. Committees

iv. Other

e. Other University related service

i. Alumni Association

ii. Kansas Union

iii. Athletic Board

iv. Search and review committees for faculty and/or staff

v. Student recruiting

vi. Sponsor/advisor of student organizations

vii. Participation in musical or theatrical groups, etc.

viii. Other

f. Service to the profession

i. Officer of professional organization

ii. Member of professional organization

iii. Professional organization committees

iv. Editorial work on a journal or report

v. Organizing a professional meeting

vi. Chairing a session at a professional meeting

vii. Consulting

viii. Other

g. Service to the community

i. Educational

ii. Charitable

iii. Consulting

iv. Other

h. Other

2. Awards and Honors

CONTACT:

Department of Film & Media Studies
University of Kansas
Oldfather Studios
1621 W. 9th St
Lawrence, KS 66045-7555
film@ku.edu

Department Chairperson
785-864-1340

APPROVED BY:

Provost and Executive Vice Chancellor

APPROVED ON:

2012-10-03 

EFFECTIVE ON:

2012-10-03 

REVIEW CYCLE:

Annual (As Needed)

RELATED STATUTES, REGULATIONS, AND/OR POLICIES:

Board of Regents requirements (II.C.8)

Article 7 Section 4 of the Faculty Senate Rules and Regulations

Faculty Evaluation Policy for tenure-track and tenured faculty

Faculty Code of Rights

CHANGE HISTORY:

04/16/2025: Migration to TeamDynamix from Drupal.
12/24/2024: Updated broken links; updated link accessibility.
04/08/2024: Corrected spelling error.
04/05/2024: Updated policy.
01/26/2017: Converted to policy PDF page.
09/28/2015: Fixed Promotion and Tenure Guidelines link to open in new window.
09/25/2015: Added PRO statement to Section III.B. Portfolio or Annual Report Preparation
06/25/2015: Removed “Under the University’s post-tenure review policy” language as unit has separate PtR policy.
04/02/2015: Fixed broken link to Board of Regents Policy Manual.
12/17/2014: Fixed broken BoR link.
11/20/2014: Technical edit to BoR link.
06/27/2014: Technical edits - added outline formatting, updated links, standardized method of date notation for Review, Approval & Change History.
10/28/2013: Updated outline to add new boilerplate text.
10/03/2012: Approved by the Provost Office.
07/02/2012: Revised.