Department of Theatre
University Of North Carolina Wilmington
Policies and Procedures Manual
(Revised March 2012)
Table of Contents
i.
Organizational Chart/Theatre Faculty + Staff
p. 3
ii.
Mission Statement
p. 4
iii.
Ethical Guidelines and Expectations
p. 5
iv.
Systems and Processes
Season Selection Process - Season Selection Committee
pp. 6-7
v.
vi.
Student Lab Series Policies - Student-Driven Work Committee
pp. 8-9
Enrollment/Recruitment Committee
p. 10
Administrative Policies/Procedures
Chair Recommendation Process
p. 11
Faculty Polices/Procedures
Recruitment and Candidate Recommendation
pp. 12-13
Annual Review Philosophy, Policies & Procedures
pp. 14-20
Definition of Senior Faculty
p. 21
Mentoring Junior Faculty
pp. 22-24
Advice for Tenure Track Faculty
pp. 25-27
Reappointment, Tenure, and Promotion Policies and Procedures
pp. 28-32
Teaching Evaluation
pp. 33-34
Faculty Workload – Elaboration on CAS Policy (DRAFT)
p. 35
Policy on Use of External Reviewers for RTP Decisions
p. 36
Faculty Development Policy (DRAFT)
p. 37
Post-Tenure Review Policy (DRAFT)
p. 38-39
2 i.
Organizational Chart
Chancellor
Gary Miller
Provost and Vice-Chancellor for Academic Affairs
Cathy Barlow
Dean, College of Arts and Sciences
David P. Cordle
Chair, Department of Theatre
Andrew Belser
Faculty, Staff
Professors
Andrew Belser
Paul Castagno
Renée Vincent
Associate Professors
Anne Berkeley
Mark Sorensen
Assistant Professors
Gregg Buck
Max Lydy
Scott Nice
Lecturer
Ed Wagenseller
Department Administrator
Sue Wilder
Part-Time Instructors
Tracy Angle
Nancy Carson
Charles Grimes
Jessica Gaffney
Myke Holmes
Staff
Audrey McCrummen
Ashley Murray
Kaitlin Ward
3 ii.
Mission
Theatre Department Mission
Our mission is to provide high-level education and training in theatre art within the context of a liberal arts
environment. For our majors committed to performance or production, we combine pre-professional training with a
solid academic core in order to prepare our students for a range of outcomes: from entry into the theatre and film
markets to exciting careers in related fields of communication and other cognate disciplines. For theatre minors or
general university students we offer a range of production opportunities, as well as academic and active learning
workshop classes to augment the general student’s breadth of knowledge. For the university community and beyond
we provide outreach programs and an eclectic and engaging season of productions that promulgate our view of theatre
as both art and humanity.
Vision
Our vision is energized by, and inextricably linked to, our new, state-of-the-art facility, our achievement of
departmental status and separate identity as an independent unit. Our vision entails several integral areas:
• a commitment to a distinctive and innovative curriculum
• becoming a major destination regional theatre program
• planning for growth and increasing enrollments with subsequent advancement of resources and personnel
• achieving success as a new department within the university as we increase our regional and national visibility
• fostering a spirit of joy, energy, and excitement in the work that we do
To achieve our vision we plan specific goals:
• develop and execute successful outreach programs on multiple levels that link UNCW theatre to the
community and campus
• develop and retain a strong faculty and staff committed to collaboration, collegiality and excellence
• nurture and encourage alumni ties and local giving
• build a more committed and confident sense of community within our theatre students
• strive to meet high standards of excellence in our productions and other public representations of our program
• collaborate or network with other departments as required
4 iii.
Ethical Guidelines and Expectations
Ethical Guidelines + Expectations
January 2012
1. We believe in the collaborative nature of the theatre process, and the interdependence of each area of the
curriculum and production program. Our collaborations – with each other, with students, with guest artists,
with the campus community – will serve as exemplary models for our students.
2. If students bring issues to a faculty member about another faculty member in the department, the professor in
whom the student is confiding will:
a. Direct the student to talk with the faculty member at the center of student concern – OR
b. Bring concerns to the Department Chair
Within the existing UNCW policies concerning academic freedom, criticizing other faculty members, work in
other classes, production work, or the department chair in front of students is unacceptable. Aside from the
need to model appropriate professional behavior, our departmental concerns are our business and have no
useful place in the student educational process.
3. Faculty members are expected to treat one another with the sort of respect that they would like for themselves.
Issues concerning fair treatment are best handled in face-to-face meetings, with the Chair present when
necessary.
4. We invest in Junior Faculty, with the hope that they will be the future of our department, giving them every
chance to succeed. We invite their input and voting participation in departmental guidelines and procedures.
Except for matters of reappointment, tenure and promotion, all full-time faculty members will have equal
input. Use of one’s rank and tenure to pressure or intimidate junior or part-time faculty members is
unacceptable.
5. We understand that we are a department with a public face, and are mindful of growing and safeguarding the
perception of our engagement in local, regional, and national communities. We understand our place as a
powerful partner in the UNCW learning community, in the Wilmington cultural landscape, and in a national
conversation about theatre pedagogy and professional performance practice. We understand that we have been
blessed with tremendous resources and will steward those resources to create a powerful and positive impact
locally and nationally.
6. In making decisions about our program, we will always consider first what is best for our students.
Individually, we understand that we will each be called on to make sacrifices for the greater good of our work
together. In those areas that fall under the Chair’s purview, he or she will attempt to make fair-minded
decisions that balance the needs of the students, Theatre department, our role in the community, and individual
faculty members.
5 iv.
Systems and Processes
Season Selection Committee
Andrew Belser, Paul Castagno, Max Lydy, Renée Vincent
Season Selection Guidelines and Process
(February 2011)
PHILOSOPHY & OBJECTIVES
1. Department productions span a broad range of genres and styles over a three or four year period. (As an
example, refer to the attached matrix constructed by Anne Berkeley several years ago.) Initiatives are taken to
identify and occasionally produce material involving special performance elements such as accents, stage
combat, and period movement. Scripts addressing diverse themes and/or with options for multi-cultural casting
are also sought.
2. In a single season and especially across multiple seasons, productions offer performers, designers, technicians,
directors, stage managers, voice and movement specialists, fight masters, choreographers and others involved
the opportunity to work in multiple venues utilized in varied ways, e.g., in the round, proscenium, thrust, etc.
3. One criterion influencing a production season is the number of roles available to student performers. This
number is set, in part, by the current (or projected) number of theatre majors and minors, number of Performance
Option theatre majors, and interest among UNCW students in general. For example, in a given selection cycle, a
minimum number of 35-40 roles may be sought across the four faculty-directed shows.
While various production aspects may be impacted by this decision, keen attention, in particular, is paid to the
number, complexity and expense of costumes that may result from the set number of roles in scripts under
consideration. In addition to total costume requirements for a season, the Fall and Spring semester demands,
respectively, are also carefully evaluated. If selected scripts (and production concepts) in a single semester or
across the production season outpace costuming capabilities, the department chair/producer is responsible for
securing needed supplemental funds, personnel and related resources.
4. As noted in #3, scripts are also carefully considered relative to scenic, lighting, sound, special effects and
other technical needs and construction demands. Again, theses matters are assessed across the entire
production season as well as Fall and Spring
semesters, respectively. If selected scripts (and production concepts) in a single semester or across the production
season outpace design/technical capabilities, the department chair/producer is responsible for securing needed
supplemental funds, personnel and related resources.
5. The department chair/producer and other interested or designated faculty or staff members research the
production plans of local and regional theatre companies to avoid duplication of shows or, as beneficial, types of
shows in the same season. Plans for campus, community and regional touring productions are also investigated.
6. In the current system of four faculty productions per academic year, the first and fourth shows are of modest or
medium scale to ensure sufficient time to appropriately design, construct, and otherwise mount these pieces. At
least one of these shows is staged in the SRO Theatre.
6 PROCESS
1. Department of Theatre full- and part-time faculty and full- and part-time staff members
are invited to submit, by mid-October, script titles of interest consistent with the “type” of shows
slated for the next year’s production season as determined by the rotation matrix. Those interested
in directing a show are encouraged to submit multiple titles consistent with one or more of the
types to be produced. Those submitting script recommendations are encouraged to collect
suggestions from students, patrons and other friends of the department.
2. By the end of October, the department chair/producer invites participation on that year’s Season
Selection Committee. All interested full-time faculty members and full-time staff members are
eligible. The group discusses the complete list of script titles and narrows the field to a short list.
3. By the end of November, director candidates provide additional information about scripts of
interest on the short list, whether titles they submitted or from among those suggested by
colleagues not seeking to direct a show. For each script of interest, a Director’s Proposal Form is
completed and submitted to the department chair/producer. Information provided includes:
o
script title, author, and summary of professional production history
o
company holding the performance rights [assistance from the department
chair/producer or department administrative associate as needed]
o
performance royalties and rental, if applicable [with assistance from the
department chair/producer or department administrative associate as needed]
o
cast size
o
director’s assessment of production demands (low, medium, high)
o
director’s interpretation of the play’s theme
o
director’s general production concept
o
required or preferred venue (Mainstage, SRO, other)
o
expectations regarding the type and scale of scenery, lighting, projections, sound,
costumes, properties, special effects, and other design/technical elements requiring time,
money, and personnel
o
preferred directing slot (first Fall show, second Fall show, first Spring show,
second Spring show) along with degree of flexibility on this matter
4. Late in the Fall semester through early Spring semester, members of the Season Selection
Committee review Director’s Proposal Forms in light of season selection philosophy and
objectives and the upcoming year’s designated show types. If members
of the Season Selection Committee do not reach consensus regarding a season line up, the
department chair/producer consults with colleagues and sets the season schedule. The department
chair/producer, in consultation with the senior, appoints production directors, whether department
faculty members or guest artists.
7 Student-Driven Work Committee
Andrew Belser, Anne Berkeley, Max Lydy, Mark Sorensen, Ed Wagenseller
Student Lab Series Guidelines + Procedures
(December 2011)
General Guidelines:
The guiding principle of this production is to create theatre that is creatively rich in a low tech
environment.
Directors of Lab Series productions must be Theatre Majors.
The Faculty advisor for the Lab Series Productions is Prof. Ed Wagenseller. Approvals of
equipment/material use will be given by the appropriate faculty member (Lydy, Sorensen, Buck).
Rehearsal /Production Procedures:
As the SRO is a high demand classroom space, we will be following a strict regimen for restoring the
space at the end of each rehearsal and performance.
1. All rehearsals must be booked through Sue Wilder by the production stage manager or director.
2. Rehearsals must begin and end on time.
3. Rehearsal spaces must be left clean, and restored in a manner ready for classes the next day.
4. Each production director will be issued ONE key to the SRO, and other rehearsal spaces as
necessary. All spaces must be locked after each use.
5. No food or drink, except for water, in any rehearsal or performance spaces.
6. Rehearsal props and furniture must be kept in space designated by Prof. Lydy when not in use.
7. Only students involved in the production may be present at rehearsals.
8. Each rehearsal + performance must be followed by the standard Theatre Dept. rehearsal or
performance report, e-mailed to Profs. Belser, Lydy, Wagenseller, Sorensen, Buck, and Sue Wilder.
9. The production will have a budget of $250. Students may not add to the production budget through
personal expense. The intent is for students to learn to create great work within budget limitations.
10. Anything (materials, equipment) brought into the building must have faculty approval.
Student Lab Series Equipment and materials use policy:
1. No consumable materials are available for use. This includes, but isn’t limited to the following
items: tape, fabric, lumber (new or repurposed), hardware, paint or notions.
2.
Shop equipment and tools are unavailable for use outside of normal hours of operation, or when
the faculty supervisor for that area is not present. Equipment usage is at the discretion of the faculty
member of that specific area.
3. Request for use of the scene shop will be made one week prior to the anticipated work call to the
faculty Technical Director. Requests will be accompanied with; the student supervisor(s) contact
information, activities to be accomplished and equipment required. No access is permitted to the
scene shop after hours or on weekends. This includes as a pass through to the Mainstage mid rails,
catwalks, grid, prop room or loading zone.
8 4. All equipment and tools borrowed must be returned to its proper storage place prior to the end of
each shops work day. All areas must be swept and all trash removed from the building.
5. Productions will be allotted, when available and deemed appropriate by the faculty Technical
Director, a total of 192 square feet of stock flats for production use. Determination of loan is
dependent on a complete design package.
6. Productions will be allotted, when available and deemed appropriate by the faculty Technical
Director, a total of 128 square feet of stock platforms for production use. Determination of loan is
dependent on a complete design package.
7. Productions will be allotted, when available and deemed appropriate by the faculty Costume
Designer minimal use of costumes and accessories from costume storage. No permanent
alterations including cutting, dyeing, or distressing may be done to any costume. All costumes and
accessories will need to be cleaned and restocked within 5 days of the end of the production.
8. Audience risers are unavailable for Student Lab Series productions. Audience seating requests
should be made and coordinated through the Office of the Department Chair.
9. The house sound system is unavailable for use. A portable sound system may be available upon
request. This system will consist of a powered mixer board, two speakers and a play back source
(CD Player) No auxiliary items may be added without prior consent of the faculty Technical
Director. The system may not be adjusted / altered without prior consent from the faculty Technical
Director. This system will be available the week prior to opening.
10. All departmental equipment and supplies must be returned before the close of the first business
day following the final performance.
11. The performance space must be restored to the departmental identified neutral configuration, or a
configuration designated by the faculty Technical Director immediately following the performance.
12. Props may be used but are at the discretion and approval of the Scenic Design Professor, and a
meeting to discuss usage of entire selection must be arranged. All season productions have priority
and the right to reclaim pulled items.
13. Lighting. Student Lab Series productions are responsible for securing their own lighting designers
and/or board operators who must be approved of by the Lighting Design professor. A repertory light
plot (of 20 instruments) will be provided and preprogrammed into the operating console. Lights
may be refocused, but they must be refocused after the production. A small inventory of light
fixtures (4 instruments) will also be used as “specials.” They must be struck and restored to their
storage position after the production. Students may not add light instruments to the specified
number of instruments for the repertory plot or specials. Precut gel may be used, but it must not be
recut. Gobos may be used, but priority for both gel and gobos goes with season production. The
Lighting Design professor must give approval for gobos.
14. No projection equipment is available for Student Lab Series productions.
9 Enrollment/Recruitment Committee
Andrew Belser, Gregg Buck, Scott Nice
10 v.
Administrative Policies/Procedures
Chair Recommendation Process
February, 2011
By the last day of February in the year prior to the last of the department chair’s term, the seated chair
and CAS dean convene a meeting to begin the process of identifying the next department chair.
Tenured professors and associate professors are eligible to serve as department chair unless otherwise
stipulated by the CAS dean, for example, if the CAS dean determines that an associate professor new
to the rank is not yet eligible.
If a majority of department faculty prefer the next chair be appointed from among current personnel
and one or more eligible faculty members express interest, the dean collects anonymous feedback
from non-candidate faculty members relative to each candidate. Based on this information and
independent assessment, the dean appoints the next department chair.
When a majority of the department faculty desire an external, national search and the dean agrees to
this process, a search committee is formed with the dean’s participation. A typical search committee
consists of at least one THR professor, at least one THR associate professor, at least one THR assistant
professor or lecturer, and a representative from the College of Arts and Sciences appointed by the dean.
Ideally, all program areas are represented (performance, design and technology, customized). The
search committee chair is a THR professor or associate professor or the dean’s appointee. The seated
department chair, if not a candidate, is eligible to serve as the search committee chair contingent on
faculty support and CAS dean approval.
An external, national search for chair, even if it includes one or more internal candidates, is
approached as a faculty search in terms of process and all regular interview activities. (Refer to the
policy/procedure titled Department of Theatre Faculty Recruitment & Candidate Recommendation.)
Department of Theatre Internal candidates may not, necessarily, engage in all phases on the standard
process, for example, a teaching demonstration.
An external chair is typically appointed at the professor rank with tenure. As such, search
committee members, all members of the Department of Theatre senior faculty, the CAS dean, and
other parties as appropriate assess finalists prior to on-campus interviews to ensure credentials
commensurate with UNCW professor benchmarks.
In the case of a department chair recommendation, a record of the vote [ballots collected at the
meeting, signature form, and absentee faculty ballots] are placed in an envelope and delivered to the
CAS dean at the completion of the process. The search committee chair and seated department chair
(if not a candidate) communicate election results to the
CAS dean immediately following the election.
The chair’s term is three years. A seated chair may run for re-election with no limit on the
number of consecutive terms.
11 vi.
Faculty Policies/Procedures
Recruitment and Candidate Recommendation Process
February 2011
The department adheres to UNCW Human Resources and College of Arts and Sciences guidelines for
faculty recruitment and candidate recommendation specific to tenure-track faculty, full-time lecturers,
part-time faculty, and adjunct faculty. Once a search authorization is issued for a tenure-track or fulltime lecturer faculty position, the department chair forms a search committee of several tenured or
tenure-track faculty members based on those who volunteer and/or the chair appoints. The department
chair proposes the committee to the CAS dean. In most cases, a search committee will not include the
department chair unless appointed by the CAS dean, whether at the request of a majority of the
department faculty, based on a request from the department chair, or as an independent choice of the
dean. Upon approval, search committee members select (or the department chair appoints) a search
committee chair who works in consultation with the department chair to oversee the search process.
(NOTE: If the search is for a department chair, the committee typically includes one or more individuals
appointed by the CAS dean, for instance, a CAS associate dean and/or current or former department
chair from another academic unit. Under these conditions, the CAS dean designates the search
committee chair or authorizes the department chair to do so.)
Working with UNCW HR and the CAS, the position advertisement typically appears in ARTSEARCH,
The Chronicle of Higher Education, Association for Theatre in Higher Education job listings, in other
discipline publications related to the position’s specialty area(s), and on the departmental Web site. Per
UNCW HR guidelines, each member of the search committee contacts at least five discipline colleagues
to request nominations of racial and ethnic minorities and women who would be competitive for the
given position. Personal invitations to apply are extended to nominees provided by the committee
members’ five contacts.
Members of the search committee consult with one another and with colleagues not on the committee to
identify a field of phase one finalists, typically up to six individuals. Through the UNCW HR
Consensus system, search committee members independently evaluate each eligible applicant as Highly
Recommended, Moderate, or Not Recommended. The search committee chair analyzes these
assessments toward narrowing the pool. A meeting is held to discuss the applicants identified via
Consensus voting as the most qualified, and the committee seeks agreement on a top eight (six for
phone interviews and two alternates if any decline or are not authorized). If at least one member of the
search committee prefers to cast anonymous ballots instead of opening voting, such ballots are utilized.
Once the process is complete, authorization is requested from UNCW Human Resources and the CAS
dean to conduct phone interviews with phase one finalists, with the objective of bringing several to
campus for on-site interviews. The search committee chair contacts phase one finalists for authorization
to communicate with their references and to share application materials with colleagues who are not
members of the search committee. The search committee chair and department chair encourage
colleagues not on the search committee to review candidate application materials and share feedback
with one or more members of the search committee. Once interview clearance is granted, search
committee members converse with phase one finalists during conference telephone calls. Even if not on
the search committee, the department chair may participate in telephone interviews if requested to do so
by a majority of search committee members, if the department chair requests to do so and a majority of
the search committee agree, or if the CAS dean requires the department chair participation at this
juncture.
Following telephone interviews with phase one finalists, the search committee chair and department
chair again invite colleagues not on the search committee to review candidate application materials and
share feedback with one or more members of the search committee.
12 In the case of a department chair search, senior faculty members not on the search committee are asked
to assess credentials relative to departmental and university professor benchmarks.
In a separate meeting, search committee members share individual assessments of telephone interviews
with phase one finalists and seek consensus on who remains under consideration. If there is no clear
majority opinion and/or if at least one search committee member prefers, anonymous ballots are cast.
Search committee members, and in some cases the department chair, review feedback from candidate
references in light of phone interview performance to identify by consensus or anonymous ballot several
phase two candidates, typically three individuals.
Potential phase two finalists are invited to campus for interviews. If any decline, the search committee
determines by discussion or anonymous vote if other phase one finalists are viable for campus visits.
The on campus interviewing process for tenure track and full-time lecturer positions includes a
candidate classroom presentation in a discipline specialty related to the position description, ideally to a
group of students studying the subject matter in an on-going course. In a meeting with full-time faculty
members, candidates discuss their scholarship, research, and artistic endeavors, field questions from the
group, and pose questions as well. Candidates meet with the CAS dean or an associate dean and the
department chair. (NOTE: Applicants for the position of department chair may engage in additional
activities determined by the search committee, faculty, or CAS dean.)
Social elements of the interviewing process include breakfast, lunch and dinner conversations with
departmental faculty members as well as campus and community tours. Other aspects of the process
may be scheduled at a candidate’s request.
Once phase two finalists complete on-campus interviews, department faculty reconvene to share
evaluations. The search committee chair and department chair preside over this meeting, lead the
discussion, and record anonymous votes. All full-time faculty members are eligible to vote. A faculty
member off-campus for all or a portion of a search due to sanctioned reasons (e.g., FMLA, research
reassignment, faculty exchange, research/artistic travel, conference participation, etc.) may be permitted
to submit a proxy vote if the search committee chair and department chair agree that circumstances
warrant. Once a unanimous or majority opinion has been determined, the search committee chair or
department chair communicates the unit’s recommendation to the CAS dean, noting the candidate’s
strengths and identified concerns, as applicable, and requests authorization to extend a position offer or
reopen/defer the search. The remainder of the hiring process follows UNCW and CAS guidelines.
13 Annual Review Philosophy, Policies & Procedures
April 2010
Department of Theatre annual review policies and procedures adhere to UNCW and CAS
guidelines, for example, as published in these excerpts from the UNCW Faculty Handbook:
Annual written evaluations are made of each faculty member by the departmental
chairperson or appropriate supervisor. This evaluation is done in conjunction with a review
of the faculty member's professional development plan. Copies of the evaluation and
professional development plan for each member of the faculty are kept on file in the
respective department chairperson's or supervisor's office, and a copy of each must be
provided to the faculty member. The faculty member shall have the opportunity to reply in
writing to the evaluation. Evaluations must be completed by July 1 of each year.
Recommendations for merit salary increases rely heavily on the written evaluation
document, but recommendations for reappointment, tenure, and promotion do not
necessarily rely on the annual cumulative reports.
The chairperson's evaluation draws from peer evaluations, student evaluations, and
subjective assessments—each to varying degrees across departments.
Peer evaluation
A variety of methods of peer evaluation are in use throughout the campus. There is no single
instrument for peer evaluation, but typically faculty are requested to include in their review
materials syllabi, course tests and examinations, statements about new courses developed,
reprints of publications, and reviews of performances. Departments include the senior faculty
and/or peers in the review of faculty performance. For new and non-tenured faculty and
graduate teaching assistants, peer review includes direct observation of classroom teaching.
Philosophy
Department of Theatre annual review not only satisfies a university mandate, but provides
departmental faculty with the opportunity to offer and receive feedback central to professional growth
as well as tenure and promotion. To that end, the department approaches the annual review process as
one of mentoring as well as evaluation. General categories of TEACHING, PROFESSIONAL
ACCOMPLISHMENTS, and SERVICE serve as a template when constructing individual dossiers.
However, participants are encouraged to include items they deem relevant that may fall outside
specified evaluation areas. While similar, the departmental annual review process is not identical to
Department of Theatre or UNCW Reappointment, Tenure and Promotion procedures. For instance,
departmental annual review may acknowledge work “in-progress” to a greater degree than a typical
RTP evaluation. Faculty are instructed to keep in mind differences between these review mechanisms
as they work toward full-scale tenure and/or promotion reviews as described in the UNCW Faculty
Handbook as well as departmental RTP documents.
Process
By a specified date, typically reading day during the Spring term, each faculty member submits to the
department chair via e-mail an annual review dossier as a PDF or MSWord file along with hard copy
supporting materials placed in three file folders labeled LAST NAME: Teaching, LAST NAME:
Professional Accomplishments, and LAST NAME: Service, respectively. Folders are provided by the
department’s administrative associate to be reused in subsequent years.
14 The department chair conducts an independent review of each faculty member based, in part, on
feedback from the annual review peer committee. This committee consists of all senior faculty
members (tenured Associate Professors and tenured Professors). The department chair assigns to
these committee members specific peer review assignments, resulting in each senior faculty member
evaluating a portion of each colleague’s annual review dossier and related supporting materials.
The chair provides committee members with electronic files of colleague dossiers and distributes
supporting material folders based on review assignments. The chair rotates assignments so that, over
the period of several years, each senior faculty member will assess the Teaching, Professional
Accomplishments, and Service of all colleagues. If the number of senior faculty members reaches
six, the department chair may opt to rotate membership on the annual review committee, with each
senior faculty member serving every other year.
The table below illustrates how review assignments may be formulated in a given year. The
scenario involves eight department faculty members, including the chair (#8), and three senior
faculty members comprising the annual review peer committee (#1, #2, #3).
Faculty Number
Teaching
Professional
Accomplishments
Service
1
3
2
2
1
3
3
2
1
4
1
2
5
1
3
6
2
1
7
2
1
8
TBD
TBD
3
1
2
3
2
2
3
TBD
The department chair identifies the annual review peer committee members by number, e.g., #1,
#2, #3, etc. The assigned numbers accompany peer feedback when conveyed to faculty
members. To maintain anonymity, committee members determine among themselves what
section of the chair’s review each will complete.
By a specified date, typically prior to Spring semester commencement but no later than mid- June,
annual review peer committee members provide the department chair with feedback to colleague
annual review dossiers and supporting materials in keeping with evaluation assignments, e.g.,
review of colleague #2’s Teaching, review of colleague #5’s Professional Accomplishments, review
of colleague #4’s Service. Committee members are encouraged, but not required, to consult with
one another when developing responses to colleague materials. This may prove of particular benefit
when assessing junior faculty items, given the mentoring nature of annual review.
Committee members may compose annual review feedback as “advice to the department chair” in
their preferred fashion but must maintain consistency across all reviews. For example, a summary
assessment of a review category may be provided as “Excellent, Very Good, Good, Fair, Poor” or “1
(poor), 2, 3, 4, 5 (excellent)”, or “Exemplary, Satisfactory, Deficient,” if the evaluator employs this
approach in all reviews. A committee member opting for an evaluation rubric or scale should provide
an explanation or “key” as necessary.
Whether or not a committee member utilizes a rating scale, narrative feedback and
recommendations should be furnished either in narrative and/or bulleted statements. The emphasis
on annual review is quality, not quantity, so there is no required or recommended amount of
commentary that must or should be offered. Rather, committee members, and the department
chair, emphasize a balance of positive and negative constructive criticism with insights and
suggestions for improvement.
15 Each peer committee member independently forwards annual review feedback to the department chair in
one MSWord document with headings to identify each section, e.g., COLLEAGUE’S LAST NAME:
Teaching, COLLEAGUE’S LAST NAME: Professional Accomplishments, COLLEAGUE’S LAST
NAME: Service. The department chair is then able to cut and paste from individual peer committee
reports to compile and provide each faculty member with a complete record of peer feedback, identifying
committee members only by number.
One member of the annual review peer committee volunteers to compile the chair’s evaluation and
transmits that document to the CAS dean via e-mail as a PDF file. Once the department chair provides
all faculty members with chair and peer committee annual review results, the annual review peer
committee member who sent the chair’s assessment to the CAS dean then provides the department
chair with that document.
In keeping with UNCW guidelines, the department chair provides a junior tenure-track faculty member
with chair and peer committee annual evaluations and also shares feedback regarding the junior faculty
member’s progress during that year toward reappointment or tenure and promotion to associate
professor. Annual review peer committee members are encouraged, but not required, to also comment
on a junior faculty member’s RTP progress. The chair’s RTP progress commentary is shared with all
senior, tenured faculty members as part of the department’s mentoring program.
The department chair factors annual assessments conducted by annual review peer committee
members into chair annual evaluation. As applicable, committee feedback may also serve as advice to
the chair when formulating merit recommendations and junior faculty mentoring initiatives. Typically
during the summer months, the department chair provides each faculty member with a PDF version of
chair’s annual review and comments from the peer committee members. Faculty members sign a hard
copy form to confirm receipt of, but not necessarily agreement with, annual review documents. In
accordance with UNCW Faculty Handbook guidelines, a faculty member may respond in writing to
peer and/or chair annual review(s).
Guidelines
An annual review dossier is prepared based on this outline. The outline also specifies what
materials must (and may) be included in each faculty member’s three supporting document folders
(Teaching, Professional Accomplishments, Service).
I. TEACHING
Items in this category must include:
A. A list of “traditional” courses taught during the review period, i.e. present academic year including
both the number and name of each course and its enrollment. For this review cycle Fall 2009 and Spring
2010 with Summer 2009 OPTIONAL.
B. A list of THR 491 Directed Individual Study, THR 499 Honors Work in Theatre, and other specialized
enrollments supervised, including the title of each DIS, the name of the student enrolled, and the number
of semester credit hours generated. For this review cycle: Fall 2009 and Spring 2010 with Summer 2009
OPTIONAL.
C. A list of THR 498 Internship in Theatre enrollments supervised, including the agency for each
Internship, the name of the student at that agency, and the number of semester credit hours generated. For
this review cycle: Fall 2009 and Spring 2010 with Summer 2009 OPTIONAL.
D. Instructional materials for courses taught:
Syllabi for courses taught during the review period. One syllabus from tenured (senior) faculty and
lecturers. Two different syllabi from junior (untenured) tenure-track faculty members. Internship, DIS,
Honors Projects, and Summer semester syllabi are OPTIONAL for all faculty.
16 Sample handouts, assignment descriptions, tests, feedback offered students, etc. For tenured (senior)
faculty members and lecturers, one example of each from one course or across multiple courses. For
instance, a tenured faculty member or lecturer who is required to submit only one syllabus may opt to
also include a test handout, assignment description, sample feedback, etc., from that same class (a more
complete view of one course) or pull these items from multiple classes. Junior (untenured) tenure-track
faculty members should offer items from at least two different courses.
E. SPOT summary reports. As annual review typically takes place during a Spring semester, these
reports come from the preceding Fall and Spring semesters as well as Summer semesters, if applicable.
Summer SPOTS are REQUIRED for junior (untenured) tenure-track faculty while OPTIONAL for
tenured faculty and lecturers. For this review cycle, Spring 2009 and Fall 2009 SPOTS are REQUIRED.
Summer 2009 SPOTS are OPTIONAL for tenured (senior) faculty and lecturers, REQUIRED for junior
(untenured) tenure-track faculty.
Faculty are to submit originals or copies of SPOT results printouts which document individual numerical
results along with department and university statistical comparisons. Typed narrative feedback, as
provided by the department’s administrative associate, should also be included.
INFORMATION PROVIDED IN ALL SECTIONS BELOW SHOULD BE IN BULLETED
FORMAT OR BRIEF PARAGRAPHS.
F. Summary of narrative teaching evaluations from students. G. Efforts to improve teaching, including
(but not limited to):
1. Participation in workshops/symposia specific to area(s) of instruction
2. Grants and fellowships related to teaching, whether secured and/or completed, applied for
and pending, or denied. Please specify the status of each grant/fellowship request.
3. New courses developed or significantly revised
4. Assignments or exercises created, revised, adopted from other sources
5. Student involvement in research projects or instruction outside the traditional confines of
the classroom
6. Comments regarding or actions taken in response to student SPOT numerical ratings or
narratives
7. Perceived performance in the classroom and measures taken in response to your perceptions
8. New or revised internship agencies or site supervisors
9. Other
H. In-class peer evaluations conducted by colleagues.
I. Recognition of teaching excellence from peers
J. Other. Any items that don’t “fit” into the above TEACHING categories. For example, a faculty
member may opt to present course materials prepared for a DIS.
II. PROFESSIONAL ACCOMPLISHMENTS
The department chair and peer reviewers reserve the right to evaluate the “merit” of any given entry in
this category. However, as a general tenet, the department holds that research/artistic projects
completed (i.e., in print, staged, performed, screened, broadcast) should reap the most reward versus
items “in press,” “under consideration/review,” “submitted,” or “in progress”. However, the
department’s annual review process acknowledges, on a prorated basis, a faculty member’s work toward
completing research/artistic projects. Reviewers are encouraged to assess the progress of a given
project with respect to its scope, potential contribution to the discipline or society, and degree to which
it fosters the professional growth of the author, performer, trainer/consultant, director, designer,
technician, etc.
17 A. RESEARCH/ARTISTIC ACHIEVEMENT (optional for lecturers who have no formal
obligations in this category)
Items in this category may include (but are not limited to):
1. Published solo books
2. Published edited books
3. Published book chapters
4. Publication and/or public presentations of original or adapted literature
5. Article or critical review (academic journals, professional journals, trade journals,
popular magazines). Please note the nature of the publication, e.g. international refereed,
national refereed, regional refereed, state refereed, international invited, etc.
6. Dramaturgy (stage or film/video)
7. Performance (stage or film/video)
8. Direction (stage or film/video)
9. Design (stage or film/video)
10. Training/consulting (for stage or film/video)
11. Technical direction (stage or film/video)
12. Production (producer/associate producer for stage or film/video)
13. Stage management (or other technical support positions for stage or film/video)
14. Convention participation, including paper presentations, workshops/short courses
conducted, panels chaired, service as a respondent, etc. Please note the nature of the conference
and/or panel, e.g. international refereed, national refereed, regional refereed, state refereed,
international invited, etc.
15. Editing (published book, textbook, journal)
16. Peer awards relative to research/artistic achievements
17. Peer review of research/artistic achievements
18. Other
B. RESEARCH/ARTISTIC ACTIVITY (optional for lecturers who have no formal obligation in this
category) Include here manuscripts or performance/design/directing/technical directing agreements “in
press,” “under contract,” or “in submission,” or work essentially complete for which you are now
attempting to locate a publication or presentation venue, as well as other relevant work that may be in its
early stages. Based on the information and supporting material you provide, the chair and peer
reviewers will gauge, for the review period, the “impact” of such work. Please use categories 1 - 18
above to structure your entries under this sub-heading.
C. PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT (optional for lecturers who have no formal obligation in this
category, though professional development initiatives may often connect with efforts to improve
teaching or service activities. If a lecturer includes an entry in this category, it will be credited toward
TEACHING or SERVICE as deemed appropriate by an evaluator).
There may be some logical overlap between endeavors in this category and those undertaken to improve
teaching performance. Please do not list such entries twice. Rather, judge the value or outcome of the
development effort and list it above under Efforts to improve teaching (I. G.) or here.
Items in this category may include (but are not limited to):
1. Attendance at professional meetings. Feel free to note specific workshops, seminars,
symposia, or panels attended.
2. Completion of on- or off-campus professional training
3. Professional consultancies, paid and non-paid, resulting in professional development
4. Workshops conducted, if such instruction enhanced your scope of knowledge via exchange
with the audience
18 5. Grants and fellowships for on- or off-campus professional development, whether secured
and/or completed, applied for and pending, or denied. Please specify the status of each
grant/fellowship request.
6. Honors and awards for professional development efforts
7. Memberships in professional societies
8. Other
Overall, a balance of university, department, and community service is ideal. For each SERVICE entry
below, reviewers may assess factors including level of responsibility, time and energy commitment,
special accomplishments of the individual or group, and general level of involvement.
III. COMPENSATED SERVICE
Faculty receiving a workload reduction (e.g., one course release per semester, one course release per
academic year) or a stipend for university, college, department, or discipline “administrative” (broadly
defined) duties should describe the nature of that work and highlight accomplishments during the
review period. This category is designed to house initiatives and achievements completed in exchange
for the types of compensation noted or others. Faculty to whom this applies may describe their work in
a brief narrative, in bulleted statements, or any other format they deem most effective.
IV. NON-COMPENSATED SERVICE
A. UNIVERSITY/COLLEGE
Items in this category may include (but are not limited to):
1. Service/leadership on governing committees, e.g., Faculty Senate
2. Service/leadership on standing committees
3. Service/leadership on task forces or ad hoc committees, including thesis defense committees
4. Special consultancies
5. Student Academic Support Advising
6. Advising university-wide student organizations
7. Other
B. DEPARTMENT
Items in this category may include (but are not limited to):
1. Special on-going responsibilities in addition to a full teaching load
2. Service/leadership on a standing committee or ad hoc committee.
3. Transfer advising
4. Advising of majors
5. Advising a departmental student organization
6. Serving as a departmental representative at visitation or recruitment events
7. Organizing special departmental events, e.g. a guest speaker or presenter
8. Creating a departmental publication
9. Other
C. COMMUNITY
Items in this category may include (but are not limited to):
1. Service/leadership on governing committees, standing committees, or ad
hoc committees, noting special charges or accomplishments of these groups.
2. Specific instruction or assistance offered to an organization on a volunteer basis specifically
related to a faculty’s expertise. NOTE: Paid consultancies
or workshops should be listed above under Professional consultancies (II. C. 3.)
3. Student community service under faculty supervision directly related to academic
instruction.
4. Other
19 D. DISCIPLINE
Items in this category may include (but are not limited to):
1. Service/leadership to professional organizations. You may note specific offices held and
accomplishments under your guidance.
2. Service in the publication or creation of organizational products, e.g., journals
3. Service/leadership in organizing conventions, meetings, panels, or workshops
4. Other
20 Definition of Senior Faculty
November 2009
The Department of Theatre defines a senior faculty member as a tenured Associate Professor or tenured
Professor.
21 Mentoring Activities Supporting Junior Tenure-Track Faculty Members
November 2009
III. Guidelines for mentoring junior faculty (from the UNCW Faculty Handbook)
The hiring of each faculty member is an investment in the university’s future. The university
hires promising faculty in the hope and expectation that they will successfully complete a
probationary period, achieve tenure, and provide the university with years of estimable service.
Accordingly, it is in the university’s interest that each academic department provide continuous
mentoring of its untenured assistant professors (junior faculty) from the time of hiring until a
tenure decision is made. Departments are encouraged to assign one or more senior faculty
mentors to each member of the junior faculty to advise them and guide their professional
development in teaching and research.
The outcome of a reappointment or tenure decision should not be a surprise to either the
department or the candidate. Department chairpersons are obligated to provide junior faculty,
at the time of hiring, with clear indications of the criteria necessary for achieving tenure and
promotion. As part of the annual evaluation process, the chairperson or other immediate
supervisor must give each junior faculty member a candid written assessment of that person’s
progress toward meeting the requirements for tenure and promotion, as well as practical
guidelines for meeting those requirements. The department’s senior faculty play a central role
in the mentoring of junior faculty, and the chairperson is required annually to provide the
senior faculty with a summary of the assessments that the chairperson has given to junior
faculty of their progress toward tenure and promotion. When the faculty member is
subsequently considered for tenure and promotion, the chairperson’s recommendation should
normally be consistent with the assessments the faculty member has received in annual
evaluations. When the chairperson’s recommendation differs from those prior assessments, the
chairperson shall explain what circumstances have arisen to cause the discrepancy.
Department of Theatre Initiatives
1. THR Tenure-track faculty applicants and finalists are encouraged to ask questions (and questions are
often posed) concerning teaching, research/scholarship/artistic achievement, and service
opportunities and obligations as related to annual review (AR), reappointment, tenure, and
promotion (RTP) and post tenure review (PTR).
2. During campus interviews, the department chair holds a private meeting with each candidate to
discuss issues including teaching, research/scholarship/artistic achievement, and service as related
to AR, RTP and PTR. With respect to r/s/a achievement, the chair relays the department’s
recognition of a wide range of recognized products germane to a faculty member’s specialty area(s)
along with the charge to explore, regardless of specialty area(s), hard copy and electronic academic
publication.
3. Once hired, the department chair holds a meeting with a new faculty member to review
(as noted above in #2) teaching, research/scholarship/artistic achievement, and service as related to
AR, RTP and PTR. More in-depth, specific conversation occurs now versus during the interview
process. During a tenure-track, junior faculty member’s first year, the department chair serves as the
“official” mentor. By the start of a junior faculty member’s second year, the individual is asked to
select, from among senior faculty members, a second mentor. Unless extenuating circumstance
warrant, the department chair ensures that no single, senior faculty member is assigned two junior
faculty members prior to all senior members agreeing to work with one junior colleague.
22 The department chair and second mentor constitute a junior faculty member’s mentoring committee.
A second-year junior faculty member may petition to work exclusively with the chair and not select
a second mentor. (Perhaps the faculty member is new to UNCW but not academia and has wellestablished records in teaching and scholarship.) If such a request is approved, the department chair
serves as the single “official” mentor, though under all circumstances junior faculty members are
encouraged to seek input from other senior colleagues as well.
A chair may opt to schedule regular or as-needed mentoring meetings with junior faculty members.
With regard to work with a second mentor, a junior faculty member and that individual design their
own working relationship. If, at any time, a junior faculty member and second mentor find their
collaboration no longer productive, the junior faculty member may request, via the department
chair, to work with another available senior faculty member with whom collaboration may prove
more constructive, or to work exclusively with the chair.
A senior faculty member serving as a second mentor may also request suspending the
mentor/mentee arrangement for reasons including but not limited to: 1) dissatisfaction with the
junior faculty member’s development relative to formal department standards and as demonstrated
in annual review dossiers and supporting materials, 2) dissatisfaction at the reappointment stage,
even if evaluation results in a favorable recommendation, and 3) failure to meet benchmarks
established by the mentor and mentee.
While the department chair and senior faculty members readily serve as resources, a junior faculty
member is primarily responsible for professional development in the areas of teaching,
research/artistic achievement, and service. Junior faculty members are urged to study department,
college, and university documents related to annual review and RTP, to prepare documents in
accordance with guidelines, and to apply advice offered by senior colleagues. If established
productivity standards and timelines are not met, a second mentor may be inclined to request the
mentor/mentee arrangement be discontinued. Under these circumstances, the department chair will
document in annual reviews a junior candidate’s lack of progress toward RTP, with statements
being shared with all senior colleagues.
4. At the onset of a new faculty member’s appointment, the individual is encouraged to participate in
available external mentoring programs, for instance those provided by the Center for Teaching
Excellence.
5. At the beginning of each academic year, the chair and second department mentor (if applicable)
meet with the junior faculty member to discuss progress toward reappointment or tenure/promotion
to associate professor. The annual review dossier and supporting materials are used for this
purpose, so junior faculty member need not prepare additional items. In years beyond the first, the
three (or two) individuals revisit all annual review dossiers in order to discuss the junior faculty
member’s complete record to date.
6. All senior faculty members have access to the annual review dossiers and supporting materials
submitted by junior colleagues and have the option to offer advice via the chair (and second mentor
if applicable) or directly to the junior faculty member. If offered directly, the chair and second
mentor (as applicable) should be copied on correspondence or receive a summary of conversations.
7. Each semester, colleagues visit at least one and ideally two class sessions conducted by junior
faculty members. The department chair monitors this process to ensure that all THR senior faculty
members visit an approximately equal number of class sessions per each junior faculty member. In
accordance with a prescribed format, evaluators compose and submit a report to the chair with a
copy provided to the instructor observed. The chair may request review of the results with the
faculty member (and perhaps peer evaluator) to acknowledge strengths and address deficiencies.
23 Peer and junior faculty members may also meet independently to discuss the experience. A THR
junior faculty member may invite junior or senior colleagues outside the department to visit classes
and offer feedback. These observations, though valuable, do not qualify to meet the one required
observation/critique per semester.
8. The department chair encourages junior faculty members to apply for summer research and
curriculum development initiatives to support teaching and research/artistic endeavors and may
assist with the preparation of such applications. Chair, second mentor (as applicable), and all senior
faculty colleagues direct junior colleagues toward other university and external support of this type,
for instance, campus Cahill Awards.
9. Though junior faculty members receive an “automatic” course reduction each semester for
research/artistic activity until reviewed for tenure/promotion, the chair requires junior faculty
members to submit a research/artistic activity work plan when the next year’s Fall/Spring schedule
is established.
10. The department chair assists junior faculty members in the preparation of their first annual review
dossier and supporting materials, in part, as training for the eventual preparation of RTP items.
During annual review, the chair offers to junior faculty colleagues feedback relative to the given
academic year as well as progress toward RTP. In keeping with UNCW guidelines, the section of
the annual review specific to progress toward RTP is shared with all senior faculty members. The
entire annual review may only be shared with the junior faculty member’s written permission.
11. Departmental RTP policies and procedures require assistance by the department chair (with optional
feedback from senior colleagues) as a junior faculty member prepares a dossier and supporting
materials.
12. THR senior faculty members may, as circumstances allow, collaborate with junior colleagues on
research/artistic projects and offer recommendations for connecting with other faculty members
both on- and off-campus.
13. The “open door” policy of the THR community is a valuable dimension of the unit’s mentoring
program. Junior faculty members are encouraged to ask questions and seek assistance from
colleagues on an on-going basis throughout their probationary contract period.
24 Research, Scholarship, and Artistic Achievement Advice for Junior Faculty Members
November 2009
from the UNCW Faculty Handbook
V. Guidelines for tenure and academic rank
The overall goal of Guidelines is to ensure continued professional growth of the faculty. Guidelines
should emphasize excellence in teaching and professional activity in order both to reward
individual faculty and to further the university's goal of excellence.
A. Tenure
Because of their long-term consequences for the university and its faculty, tenure decisions are more
important than promotion decisions. To be granted tenure, a faculty member must have evidenced
proficiency and a pattern of growth in areas of teaching; scholarship and research/artistic
achievement; and service. Of these, teaching effectiveness is the primary criterion for the granting of
tenure. When a faculty member who has served two years or longer at the rank of assistant professor
is recommended for permanent tenure, he/she will also be recommended for promotion.
B. Academic rank
1. Assistant professor
For appointment to the rank of assistant professor a candidate shall show promise as a teacher
and evidence of progress in the area of research or artistic achievement.
2. Associate professor
For appointment to the rank of associate professor a candidate shall show evidence of having
developed into an effective teacher, of a continuing pattern of research or artistic achievement, of
regular professional service, and of scholarship and professional development.
3. Professor
For appointment to the rank of professor a candidate shall have exhibited during her/his career
distinguished accomplishment in teaching, a tangible record of research or artistic achievement,
and a significant record of service. An individual with the rank of professor should have a
reputation as an excellent teacher and be recognized as a scholar within her/his professional field
Department of Theatre Recommendations
• Research, Scholarship and Artistic Achievement (RS&AA) are not optional nor should they be
delayed. Begin immediately to establish a vibrant RS&AA program as part of the complete case for
RTP.
• RS&AA should combine initiative and opportunity. Clearly, some things will drop in your lap,
while others must be pursued. Often, initiative will lead to opportunity. RS&AA often means
breaking out of your comfort zone, or everyday patterns. University Reappointment, Tenure and
Promotion (RTP) Committees historically perceive local work to be of marginal value in the RTP
process. Regional work is more favorable, and national or international work will typically serve a
candidate best.
• Strive to increase your stature within the profession or academically by assuming positions on
national boards or conferences and do it as soon as possible. Whether or not you request external
review as an RTP candidate, realize that you may invite off-campus colleagues to comment on your
service to the discipline through professional positions.
• Be proactive with SETC, USITT, ASTR, and ATHE and other conferences in terms of leading
panels, or presenting papers or workshops. A key element of RTP here is the research of teaching or
pedagogy. Thus, innovative or theoretical approaches to teaching should be presented and or
published in national forums and publications.
• Attending conferences alone will have marginal value in the RTP area, though such activity
(particularly if it involves presentation and/or workshop participation) may be valuable to
demonstrate valuable initiatives to enhance teaching.
25 •
•
•
•
Relative to professional organizations, contact officers and volunteer to serve on an editorial board
or conference panel. Pursue opportunities that best showcase your teaching, research/artistic
activity, and service and that help build your professional network.
Choose professional venues carefully, with an emphasis on those considered most prestigious by
your peers
Use your summers to best advantage. Teaching summer school here will not
help you much at all relative to RTP progress. If possible, write a grant to allow you the time to
complete research/artistic activity. The reality is that summer artistic contributions at a notable
venue will be impressive on the dossier whereas summer teaching will not. If you do teach, strive
to incorporate professional development, for instance, traditional or online innovations, perhaps
supported by a CAS Summer Curriculum Development Initiative or CTE Summer Curriculum
Development Initiative.
Review the academic calendar in terms of defining your workload here, and incorporating outside
professional work. If you get a gig with a resident company, we may seek one time funds from the
CAS dean to cover short term residencies in certain cases.
Estimate of the relative impact of research, scholarship, & artistic achievement as assessed by
members of the University RTP Committee:
HIGH IMPACT
• juried book with a notable press in the academic or professional circles
•
design, direction, performance, technical direction, providing specialized training, or substantive
consultation with an equity theatre or a recognized regional LORT theatre
•
professional work with television or film at national or international level serving as editor of a
national publication (recognized editorial board) publishing an article in a juried nationally
recognized theatre journal, or anthology
•
winning a recognized award for research or artistic achievement
•
innovative and recognized breakthroughs in your sub-discipline
•
establishing high profile interdisciplinary creative or academic work
•
invited presentation at an international conference or symposium
•
winning a nationally or internationally competitive grant, conference, invitation or symposia and
completing the intent of the project.
•
professional work in union companies
•
continuous high level execution of research and creative activity plan
MEDIUM IMPACT
• publication of a textbook in your area of pedagogy
•
presentation of a papers or chair/respondent on a panel at a national or regional conference
•
coordinating panels and presenters at a national conference summer stock work for professional
theatres in most areas professional consultation with regional theatres and venues
26 •
creation of widely adopted work packets or standards in your discipline such as a handbook
•
book or performance reviews in an academic journal
•
while officers of conferences or editorial boards are considered service, the programming aspects
may crossover into this area; in terms of increasing your national and regional profile
•
work for regional non-union venues or road shows.
•
online juried publication or acceptance of online materials
LOW IMPACT
• attending a conference without presentation unless an officer in the organization(be resourceful,
network with colleagues and get involved, make the most of it; demonstrate how the conference
boosted your career and skill base.)
•
paid or unpaid work in local theatres, even if professional/non-union. (the reality is no matter how
impressive it may really be, committee members tend to dismiss local work)
•
a conference or workshop within the state an article for a newspaper or magazine
•
presentations in a local venue, on WHQR (public radio), for a local documentary, etc.
•
work on our productions, as this typically is part of the 12-hour semester workload, though it can
help committee members assessed the quality of a faculty member’s work
•
article or essay in a non-juried regional or national publication publication in a national discipline
newsletter
NEGATIVE IMACT
• last minute efforts to shore up RS&AA
•
discounting RS&AA because you are too busy, or, to achieve short-term financial goals. While we
sincerely recognize the necessity of summer pay, you must determine if summer teaching is adversely
affecting your longer range objectives of tenure and promotion
•
Producing grants but not having anything to show for it. only conference presentations without publications
•
sense that initiative and resolve are low relative to RS&AA
•
refusing or rejecting professional work or opportunities of notable impact without suitable explanation,
especially in context with an ensuing RTP decision
27 Reappointment, Tenure, and Promotion Policies and Procedures
November 2009
With regard to reappointment, tenure, and promotion issues, The Department of Theatre complies with the current
Criteria for Reappointment, Promotion, and Award of Tenure guidelines stipulated by The University of North
Carolina Wilmington as published in the current version of the online UNCW Faculty Handbook. To that end, the
following description of departmental policies and procedures reminds participants (both candidates and evaluators) of
their obligations to university prescriptions regarding all phases of the process, from mandatory review cycles to
minimum thresholds for favorable evaluations and recommendations. This document is primarily intended to offer
additional information concerning the philosophy and mechanics of the departmental process along with supplemental
information regarding evaluation categories.
Philosophy
Like annual review, department members approach RTP proceedings in a collegial fashion. The process is designed
to assist candidates in preparing accurate and detailed materials in response to university prescribed dossier outlines,
requirements and recommendations for supporting materials, and the optional cover narrative. Senior faculty
members and the department chair are offered sufficient time for perusal of candidate items, substantive deliberations,
and reasonable access to additional artifacts deemed necessary to facilitate review. In turn, candidates are provided
with sufficient time to integrate into RTP materials mandatory and recommended document enhancements.
Preparation and Chronology
The department chair serves as the primary mentor and source of information for all RTP candidates. In that role, the
chair meets with a candidate to discuss the evaluation process, particularly when it is a mandatory action. During these
meetings, the chair reviews university and departmental guidelines related to dossier and supporting material
preparation and answers questions concerning the review process.
Model dossiers (from recent successful RTP decisions) are available for the candidate to review. While excellent
examples for RTP candidates to review, adherence to a particular dossier does not guarantee a favorable
recommendation. Candidates understand that it’s their responsibility to seek input from senior faculty members
regarding their dossiers and supporting materials. Although feedback to a candidate is not required of senior faculty
colleagues (other than the department chair), candidates are encouraged to invite input from these individuals and well
in advance of the senior faculty review committee’s meeting and vote/recommendation. Senior faculty members are
encouraged to embrace the responsibility and privilege to provide tenure- track junior faculty members with feedback
and assistance as an RTP candidate assembles review materials. This feedback process is separate from the voting
process, and candidates recognize that assistance does not, necessarily, signal endorsement. The approach offers an
RTP candidate the support needed to present a complete, accurate case. However, once final versions of materials are
presented to the chair and senior faculty members, all reviewers take a fresh, objective approach both independently
and in consultation with senior colleagues and the department chair. Once a vote is cast and recommendations
formalized, a candidate will receive, at best, only minor mandates or requests for revisions, for example, correcting
typographical or spelling errors.
In the year preceding a mandatory reappointment or tenure/promotion review, candidates are notified and reminded of
their obligations by the department chair. Candidates submit multiple copies of full RTP dossiers (hard copy or
electronic) and one set of supporting materials in accordance with the following timeline:
1. 30 business days prior to the RTP materials due date specified by the CAS dean (CAS RTP due date), the RTP
candidate provides the department chair with a MSWord file of a full DRAFT version of his/her RTP dossier and
one DRAFT set of hard copy supporting documents housed in a three-ring binder. The chair distributes via e-mail
the dossier to senior faculty members and notifies the group of the availability and location of supporting
documents, to be shared among chair and senior colleagues.
2. Over the next ten (10) business days, the candidate solicits required feedback from the department chair and
optional feedback from senior colleagues. As feedback is received, the candidate composes a final dossier version
and final set of supporting documents.
28 3. 15 business days prior to CAS RTP due date, the RTP candidate provides the department chair with a PDF file of
a full FINAL version of his/her RTP dossier and one FINAL set of hard copy supporting documents in a three-ring
binder. The chair distributes via e- mail the dossier to senior faculty members and notifies the group of the
availability and location of the supporting documents, to be shared among the chair and senior colleagues.
4. For five (5) business days, the senior faculty review committee and department chair study the final versions of
the candidate’s RTP dossier and support documents.
5. Ten (10) business days prior to the CAS RTP due date, the department chair and senior faculty members convene
to discuss and vote on the RTP case and formulate a recommendation.
6. At least five (5) business days prior to the RTP CAS due date, the department chair must notify senior colleagues
of his/her recommendation of the RTP candidate.
Faculty subject to or requesting RTP review are encouraged to prepare a DRAFT of their dossier and supporting
documents during the Summer semester preceding their review or, in the case of reappointment decisions, in the Fall
semester of that year at the latest. Candidates are directed to revisit annual review documents to assist in the
preparation of RTP dossiers. While the department’s annual review outline parallels the university RTP template in
most instances, it is not identical, specifically with respect to the annual review outline’s inclusion of
Research/Artistic Activity, a section added to capture faculty efforts that may not result in a finished product during
that annual review period. Candidates are reminded that the focus of RTP evaluations is Research/Artistic
Achievement.
Candidates are required to follow strictly the annotated university RTP outline when composing RTP dossiers and
compiling supporting documents. First drafts of these items are reviewed by the chair for content and, more
importantly, adherence to established university and department guidelines. RTP candidates understand that
assistance by the chair or senior faculty members does not guarantee or even suggest a favorable vote and
recommendation. Rather, the process ensures preparation of accurate, complete materials that comply with UNCW
RTP criteria.
Senior Faculty Meeting
At least ten (10) business days prior to the CAS RTP due date, a meeting of the senior faculty is convened by the
department chair. If desired by a majority of the THR senior faculty or department chair or if required by the CAS
dean, outside members may join the senior faculty committee. Rationale for the inclusion of external UNCW
committee members may include, but not be limited to, the desire for one or more additional members with unique
experience with the RTP candidate (e.g., co-instructor in a cross-listed course or HON class) or expertise specific to
the RTP candidate’s research or artistic achievement. External members will typically be professors from departments
that share some curricular connection with theatre and/or professors with administrative experience, present or past,
e.g., a department chair or associate dean. The most common situation that may necessitate one or more outside
committee members is a review of a THR candidate for promotion to professor.
The department chair does not arrive at the start of the RTP meeting so senior committee members may independently
discuss the candidate. Committee members assess a candidate relative to university and department RTP criteria. It is
the general practice of the department chair to encourage review of these guidelines prior to evaluating candidate
documents. When a majority of the committee members deem the time is appropriate, the department chair joins the
RTP meeting.
The department chair provides the required signature page as well as anonymous ballots to be used by senior faculty
members and external members, as applicable. Once consensus is reached to conclude deliberations, the department
chair distributes the signature page and ballots. The chair does not vote. A senior faculty member unable to attend the
RTP meeting may contact the department chair to request a proxy ballot, to be submitted in a sealed envelope to the
department chair no later than 8:00 am the morning of the RTP meeting. The department chair collects all ballots and,
along with a member of the senior faculty committee, counts and announces the vote tally of recommend and/or not
recommend.
29 At the meeting, the department chair solicits, from senior faculty committee members, oral feedback on the RTP
candidate to include in the chair’s evaluation. Senior faculty members are also encouraged to provide feedback via email or hard copy, as a group or independently, over the next two business days. This material is also utilized by the
chair when composing the evaluation, whether or not the chair and a majority of the senior faculty committee
members concur. At least five business days prior to the CAS RTP due date, the department chair must notify senior
faculty committee members, by either written or electronic means, whether the recommendation is for or against the
RTP action. If a majority of the senior faculty disagree with the recommendation of the chair, they have the option to
submit a separate elaborated recommendation. Only one such recommendation from senior faculty members may be
submitted, and it must be signed by a majority of the department’s senior faculty. The chair’s recommendation and a
separate senior-faculty recommendation, if any, are forwarded as part of a candidate’s RTP materials. The candidate
receives a copy of the evaluation(s) the day materials are submitted to the CAS.
In accordance with the current sentiments of the university chancellor, provost, and CAS dean, the department chair
and senior faculty members realize that, in all but extraordinary cases, a favorable tenure recommendation should
involve a favorable recommendation for promotion to the Associate rank. In terms of benchmarks for securing a
favorable RTP review (whether tenure/promotion to Associate Professor or promotion to Professor), the department
interprets and applies pertinent statements contained in the UNCW Faculty Handbook.
Evaluation Areas (from the UNCW Faculty Handbook)
A. Teaching
The primary concern of the university is teaching its students. Thus teaching effectiveness is the primary criterion for
reappointment, promotion, and tenure. Faculty must be well-trained, knowledgeable, skillful, and enthusiastic
presenters of knowledge. In addition, they should embody for their students the life of scholarship. Teaching involves
not only the transmission of knowledge, but the development of the students' desire for knowledge, of the skills for
acquiring knowledge and for critical evaluation, and of the factors that enable the student to assume a responsible
position in society. Teaching, then, involves all aspects of the educative process inside and outside the classroom. In
addition to teaching courses, these aspects include revising old courses and developing new ones; developing teaching
methods; and assisting, advising, and counseling students in academic matters. Commitments to learning, to fostering
the intellectual development of students, and to improving educational programs mark the dedicated teacher. The
nature of the university demands such commitment and performance from all its faculty members.
Evaluation should be made of as many aspects of teaching as possible. Formal evaluation of teaching shall include
peer evaluation, student evaluations, and documentation of innovative teaching and other teaching-related activities.
B. Scholarship and professional development
Scholarship is expected of every faculty member. Besides a mastery of the fundamentals of a discipline it involves a
thorough familiarity with its various areas, problems, and continuing investigations; it necessitates staying abreast of
the relevant literature and includes the ability and insight to organize, synthesize, and evaluate effectively the work of
others. It is a large component in the makeup of a good teacher and a necessaryingredient in the conduct of meaningful
research and the presentation of research results. Thus it is a prime responsibility within the academic profession.
The university encourages faculty members to continue their education throughout their professional lives. Faculty
members should seek appropriate advanced study which will (1) enhance their teaching effectiveness, (2) apprize them
of developments in their academic fields, or (3) add new areas of expertise to the existing programs of the university.
Examples of appropriate professional development include participation in formal coursework, seminars, workshops,
and other specialized training programs.
C. Artistic achievement and research
Artistic achievement is an appropriate responsibility of some faculty members. Depending on the medium and
specialization involved, continuing efforts toward the creation, production, interpretation or criticism of works of art
are expected in some disciplines. Such activity may take many forms: exhibits, concerts, performances, productions,
readings, and writings. The academic artist has a responsibility to enlighten and enrich society at large with her/his
artistic endeavors.
30 Besides artistic achievement, research understood as original investigation is also an important function of higher
education. By continuously adding to the store of human knowledge, research enriches society at large while
contributing greatly to vitality and depth in teaching. The university therefore encourages faculty members to engage
in scholarly research.
Since the communication of knowledge is a central function of an educational institution, public rendition of a faculty
member's research is highly desirable and may assume a variety of forms, which may be addressed to her/his
professional colleagues or to society at large. Such renditions may include books, reviews, articles, reports, lectures,
seminars, and papers presented at meetings.
In evaluating a faculty member’s artistic achievement or research, attention will be directed to its vitality, integrity,
originality, and overall quality, as judged by professional colleagues on and off campus.
D. Service
The university encourages and expects its faculty members to apply their talents and abilities in service to the
university, to organizations and to the community at large.
Service within the university is expected of all faculty members. Such service normally includes participation on
departmental, school or college, and university-wide committees, and willing assistance in supporting the functions
and purposes of the university.
The university shall also recognize and encourage faculty service to professional and scholarly organizations.
Examples of such service include leadership in professional and learned societies, evaluations of manuscripts and
research proposals, editorial board work, and other professionally related activities with or without compensation.
It is also appropriate for faculty members to serve in an educational advisory or informational capacity at the local,
regional, state, national, and international levels. This service should ordinarily be an outgrowth of professional
training and/or one's affiliation with the university. Examples of such activities include conducting workshops,
consulting, and serving on advisory boards with or without compensation.
In reference to the above categories, faculty candidates and evaluators are bound to descriptions of minimum
accomplishments as specified in the UNCW Faculty Handbook. Participants are also directed to consider how annual
review feedback in these categories from the department chair and peer committee has been applied.
In addition to information required or suggested for established review categories by the UNCW RTP outline,
candidates are urged to consider for inclusion entries from past annual review dossiers. In this manner, candidates
may present the most complete picture of their teaching, research, and service achievements.
Research, Scholarship and Artistic Achievement
Given the diverse nature of the theatre discipline, the manner in which we appropriately represent that breath in our
B.A. program, and the variety of discipline-related research/artistic interests among our faculty, those involved in the
RTP process are reminded of the following with respect to research, scholarship and artistic achievement (see also
Department of Theatre Research, Scholarship, & Artistic Achievement Advice for Tenure-Track Faculty Members):
Numerous types of products result from viable, juried “traditional” research and artistic endeavors including (but not
limited to) a book (fiction or non-fiction), book chapter, edited text, journal article, monograph publication (such as
academic newsletters focusing on pedagogy or administration), competitively selected or invited review of a book,
script, performance, or television/film product, original case study, simulation, interactive exercise, directed
professional (commercial) stage/television/film performance, voice/dialect work for a professional (commercial)
stage/television/film performance, choreographed professional (commercial) stage/television/film performance,
movement/combat for a professional (commercial) stage/television/film performance, professional (commercial)
stage/television/film performance, scenic, costume, lighting, or audio design of a professional (commercial)
stage/television/film performance, original script (fiction or non-fiction) for a short format or full-length professional
(commercial) stage, television, or film performance.
31 In all instances, faculty are urged to document and, if necessary, solicit external review of research/artistic products.
In keeping with the UNCW Faculty Handbook criteria germane to RTP, the department does not stipulate a minimum
number or particular type of artistic/research products required for tenure or promotion to a particular rank. For
example, the department interprets the Handbook statement (regarding promotion to Professor) “....a tangible record of
artistic achievement....” to indicate the authority and responsibility of our unit’s chair and senior faculty to assess a
candidate’s accomplishments and merit for a favorable review in this evaluation category. Our department does not
specify any one form of artistic or research product as imperative for reappointment, tenure, or promotion (e.g., a
mandatory book publication for promotion to Professor). Rather, a consistent record, along with the quantity and
demonstrated quality of artistic and research artifacts, are of paramount importance.
External Reviews
In the Department of Theatre, external reviewers are optional for tenure and promotion to associate professor or
professor. External reviewers may be used at the request of the candidate in consultation with the department chair and
the senior faculty. Details are provided in the unit’s document titled Policy on Use of External Reviewers for RTP
Decisions.
Chair’s Evaluation
The chair’s mandatory written evaluation included with an RTP dossier and supporting materials contains the chair’s
assessment of the RTP candidate (with sub-points as required by UNCW RTP guidelines), the senior faculty’s
anonymous vote count and representative comments provided by members of the senior faculty committee.
If a majority of the senior faculty disagree with the recommendation of the chair, they have the option to submit a
separate elaborated recommendation. Only one such recommendation from senior faculty members may be submitted,
and it must be signed by a majority of the department’s senior faculty. The chair’s recommendation and a separate
senior-faculty recommendation, if any, are forwarded as part of a candidate’s RTP materials.
references:
Department of Theatre Research, Scholarship, & Artistic Achievement
Advice for Tenure-Track Faculty Members Policy on Use of External Reviewers for RTP Decisions
UNCW Faculty Handbook
32 Teaching Evaluation Policy
March 2012
Teaching Evaluation of Junior Faculty:
• Each semester, colleagues visit at least one and ideally two class sessions conducted by junior faculty
members.
• The department chair monitors this process to ensure that all THR senior faculty members visit an
approximately equal number of class sessions per each junior faculty member. In accordance with a
prescribed format, evaluators compose and submit a report to the chair with a copy provided to the instructor
observed.
• The chair may request review of the results with the faculty member (and perhaps peer evaluator) to
acknowledge strengths and address deficiencies. Peer and junior faculty members may also meet
independently to discuss the experience.
• A THR junior faculty member may invite junior or senior colleagues outside the department to visit classes
and offer feedback. These observations, though valuable, do not qualify to meet the one required
observation/critique per semester.
Teaching evaluation of Part-time Faculty:
• The evaluator (department chair or senior faculty member) schedules a classroom observation based on the
synchronization of schedules. Visits are pre-arranged so both parties are aware of the session to be observed
prior to the date. In the case of online courses, the evaluator “attends” an online module and may critique
computer-based interaction between the instructor and students as well as engage in online communication.
•
Typically, classroom observations occur during the Fall term each year. However, exceptions may occur, for
instance, if a part-time faculty member’s first contract is during a Spring semester.
•
The evaluator reviews the course syllabus and other materials the part-time instructor provides for the course,
in general, or class session, in particular as well as the preceding Fall and Spring SPOT materials, as
available.
•
The evaluator completes the department’s standard peer teaching observation critique form used for fulltime faculty.
•
Three copies of the peer observation critique are produced. One remains with the evaluator (if not the
department chair), one is given to the part-time faculty member, and one is submitted to the department chair
(if the evaluator is not the department chair).
•
The evaluator schedules a brief (30-minute or so) meeting with the part-time faculty member observed. If an
online instructor, conversation may take place by phone. Discussion covers course and session materials,
SPOT results, the class session observed, the evaluator’s written feedback, and other issues both individuals
find relevant.
•
Each part-time faculty member submits a brief written report including a response to recent SPOT results,
general self-assessment of their teaching, specific assessment of the observed classroom session, summary of
their meeting with the evaluator, and planned efforts to enhance teaching based on these elements. This
report may also include any differences of opinion the part-time faculty member holds with regard to the peer
evaluation filed by the evaluator. The report carries no stipulation for minimum or maximum page length
apart from a requirement that the part-time faculty member cover the aspects noted above.
•
If a part-time faculty member is on-going for more than three consecutive years with consistent favorable
reviews, the department chair may opt for peer observation of teaching every two years, with annual
review of SPOT feedback. The chair may reinstate annual classroom observation at any time.
33 In addition to SPOTS Summary Reports, the following is what is required by each tenure-track faculty
member for the Theatre Department Annual Review:
•
Summary of narrative teaching evaluations from students.
•
Efforts to improve teaching, including (but not limited to):
o Participation in workshops/symposia specific to area(s) of instruction
o Grants and fellowships related to teaching, whether secured and/or completed, applied for
and pending, or denied. Please specify the status of each grant/fellowship request.
o New courses developed or significantly revised
o Assignments or exercises created, revised, adopted from other sources
o Student involvement in research projects or instruction outside the traditional confines of the classroom
o Comments regarding or actions taken in response to student SPOT numerical ratings or narratives
o Perceived performance in the classroom and measures taken in response to your
perceptions
o New or revised internship agencies or site supervisors
o Other
o In-class peer evaluations conducted by colleagues.
•
Recognition of teaching excellence from peers
•
Other. Any items that don’t “fit” into the above TEACHING categories. For example, a faculty member
may opt to present course materials prepared for a DIS.
34 Faculty Workload Policy
Elaboration on CAS Workload Policies
March 2012 (DRAFT)
In addition to existing UNCW and CAS workload policies, the Theatre Department at UNCW is in the midst of a
three-year process to develop and assess a workload policy that will establish a sustainable, equitable, and
collaborative curricular environment.
Theatre education encompasses a wide range of scholarly and applied collaborative activities that exist outside more
conventional practices in fields that primarily focus on an individual’s scholarship. Theatre faculty engage, for
example, with students in long contact hours that involve scholarly research, rehearsal, design and technical
production, and other performance-related activities. Therefore, each sub-discipline in the field necessitates specific
requirements relating to student contact hours and teaching workloads that are unique to theatre.
To ensure equitable faculty workloads, the Chair will have discretion, in collaboration with the CAS Dean, to
distribute teaching loads in order to successfully meet the demands of theatrical production in the context of an
academic program. As the mounting of productions constitutes a major component of theatre curriculum, and as our
production calendar grows, this policy will be best articulated through careful examination of the annual production
and performance season.
Increased program activity, particularly in production areas, must be accompanied by policies that distribute growing
faculty workloads equitably. Our evolving workload policy must include credit hour equivalencies (or release time)
for production, administrative, and curricular development work.
35 Policy on use of External Reviewers for RTP Decisions
November 2009
In the Department of Theatre, external reviewers are optional for tenure and promotion to associate and full
professor. External reviewers may be used at the request of the candidate in consultation with the chair and the
senior faculty. External reviewers
st
should be secured by the spring semester preceding the personnel action. The dossier document deadline is June 1
thus allowing the external review of the document to transpire during the summer semesters prior to the UNCW
faculty review in the following fall semester. This is in compliance with the CAS time-line for RTP. The judgment
of the chair is invaluable in recommending to faculty undergoing review if this option would strengthen their
prospects.
The RTP candidate and senior faculty may independently submit a list of potential external reviewers. Once a
master list is compiled, the candidate provides a brief and fair description of his or her relationship to the potential
reviewers.
One or two external reviewers from the list will be contacted confidentially by the chair with an invitation to assess
the candidate’s research and artistic accomplishments. The department chair will provide the reviewer(s) with the
research/artistic achievement section of the RTP candidate’s dossier, copies of accompanying supporting materials,
and UNCW and THR narratives germane to research/artistic achievement benchmarks for tenure and promotion to
associate professor or promotion to professor, as applicable.
The external reviewers must hold the tenured rank of (full) professor at a college or university. Additionally, the
reviewers should have garnered notable national recognition for their work in the academy or the profession.
Selection of the outside reviewer is confidential to warrant an unbiased perspective on the RTP candidate’s
qualifications. It is understood there should be no communication between the candidate and the reviewers during
this process. External reviewers serve only as consultants and do not have a vote in the final personnel decision.
If external review is not chosen, the candidate is still welcome to solicit and include external letters of support
in the RTP dossier. The choice not to invoke the formal external review process shall in no way count against
the application.
36 Faculty Development Policy
March 2012 (DRAFT)
The Department of Theatre expects each tenure-track faculty member to maintain a professional and scholarly
research agenda. The chair will serve as a mentor for faculty development. Specifically, the chair will:
Support faculty in locating professional and scholarly opportunities by:
• Identifying possible sources of funding for research, theatrical production, and travel
• promoting faculty development as central to the engagement of professional guest artist residencies in
the department
• Helping to coordinate international faculty exchanges
The chair is responsible for using appropriate discretion in allocating departmental funds for travel, distributing funds
equitably and with the understanding that some travel promises to make more significant contribution to both the
growth of the department and to the faculty member’s professional development.
Because of the nature of scheduling productions in the professional theatre, it is likely that faculty opportunities for
professional work will conflict with the academic calendar. As such, research opportunities will often arise for
scholarly and professional engagement during the teaching semester. In this event, the chair will work with the faculty
member to:
• Assess the merit of the opportunity with respect to its potential contribution to both the department and the
faculty member’s professional development
• Determine if and how the faculty member’s departmental schedule might be altered to accommodate offcampus work
• Develop a plan for ways the professional work will enrich the curriculum through instruction, production
activity, and the establishment professional partnerships with the department
The chair will use discretion to veto off-campus professional work if the burden on departmental production and
teaching is too great—for example, if factors such as departmental scheduling or funding cannot be arranged.
While the chair will assist the individual faculty member in his or her professional or scholarly agenda, but the
responsibility for working out details of, for example, off-campus residencies, is ultimately the faculty member’s.
37 Post Tenure Review Policy
March 2012 (DRAFT)
The Theatre Department Policy on Post Tenure Review (PTR) follows the UNCW policy on PTR as outlined in the
Faculty Handbook. This departmental policy defines those issues left to its discretion by the campus regulations. The
Department of Theatre PTR process will follow annual schedules published by the CAS Dean’s Office and the
University.
The Process
1. Faculty under review prepare a report on their professional activities for the prior five years. (see below)
2. These reports are made available to senior faculty for review.
3. Senior faculty complete an evaluation form for each colleague being reviewed and submit it to the chair. In certain
cases, the chair may convene the senior faculty for additional consultation.
4. The chair reviews the reports and faculty evaluations and writes the chair's evaluation.
5. The faculty member and chair sign the evaluation in acknowledgment of its receipt by the faculty member.
6. The chair forwards a list of the peer evaluators, a copy of the evaluation, and the faculty member's response, if
any, to the dean.
The PTR Report
Faculty in the Department of Theatre who undergo post-tenure review submit a report providing a listing of
professional activities, limited to the period under review (in most cases, the prior five years), as follows:
• An optional personal statement outlining professional accomplishments and goals
• A copy of the faculty member’s current Curriculum Vitae
• Courses taught, listed in chronological order
• Publications
• Scholarly presentations
• Professional production work – performance, directing, design, performance research
• Service Activities: University, College, Departmental, Professional, Community
• Awards (teaching, research, service)
• Attachments: representative syllabi and assignments, copies of publications
• SPOT results for question 16 are provided to the chair by Institutional Research; faculty who wish to provide
include additional SPOT results may do so. Annual evaluations for the prior five years are provided by the
chair.
Note: In certain cases, the chair may request additional information to be submitted prior to and during the post-tenure
review period.
Outcome Categories
According to the University Policy, the purpose of PTR is "to support and encourage excellence among tenured
faculty by recognizing and rewarding exemplary faculty performance" and to provide "for a clear plan and timetable
for improvement of faculty found deficient." Furthermore, the chair's evaluation "shall state whether the faculty
member's overall professional performance has been satisfactory, exemplary, or deficient." The policy recognizes that
the large majority of faculty attain a high level of professional performance and that only an exceptional few will stand
out as either exemplary or deficient.
In the Department of Theatre it will normally be expected that professional performance of faculty will be
found satisfactory. That category covers a wide range of achievement, and almost all faculty will be found to be at
least professionally competent, conscientious in the discharge of teaching and other duties given departmental
distribution of workload, and to have made efforts to improve performance. In order to be found exemplary, as that
category is defined for the purposes of this policy, faculty shall have achieved a level of professional excellence that is
"substantially above expectations and that significantly exceeds the performance of most faculty." Exemplary
performance will normally be limited to those with exemplary achievement in both teaching and research, and with
38 solid contributions in service. A rating of deficient shall result when faculty performance does not meet the criteria for
being satisfactory (as stated above).
Following UNCW policy, great weight should be given to results of annual evaluations in determining level of
performance. “Exceptional” performance involves accomplishments that are close to the top in department in all area
of performance. The label “deficient” reflects performance that has been below minimal professional standards.
Exceptional and deficient performance ratings ordinarily have been reflected consistently in the annual
evaluations.
For additional information on timetable, procedures, criteria, outcomes, and due process, please consult the UNCW
policy on Post-Tenure Review.
39