Standards and Guidelines

Standards for Retention and Tenure of Art and Design Faculty

Adopted by the CAA Board of Directors on April 24, 1993; revised on October 27, 2002, October 24, 2004, and October 23, 2011.

Introduction

The College Art Association has established the following standards respecting art and design faculty, a copy of which will be sent to each accrediting body in the United States and to institutional members of CAA under cover of a letter from the current president of the association urging the said accrediting body to recognize the standards as appropriate to any collegiate art and/or design program. These standards are to be updated or approved by the appropriate CAA committee in a timely manner.

CAA encourages institutions to maintain their diverse and unique departmental missions. Given the great range of missions and standards among institutions, it is essential that all applicants be provided with as much information as possible. CAA encourages institutions to comply with AAUP (American Association of University Professors) standards with respect to normal time frames of academic advancement.

CAA notes that this set of standards represents national norms and thresholds that should provide a framework for supporting individual and institutional purposes. The standards should not appear to be obligatory or required; specific needs and missions of institutions need to be respected. CAA urges art and design units to put specific guidelines and criteria in writing, and to consider attaching CAA standards to institutional guidelines.

Status of Art and Design Faculty

All art and design faculty on full-time annual appointments other than visiting artists, critics, artists-in-residence, and/or other alternative nonstandard titles are to be regarded as having regular faculty status including eligibility for academic rank, promotion to all academic ranks, tenure, retirement, and other benefits, and participation in college and university governance. The title “artist-in-residence” should not be used as a construction to circumvent normal hiring practices. Equal access to university support for research and professional development is essential for regular faculty status. The work of art and design faculty is not extraacademic. A faculty member’s commitment to his or her creative work (production, expression, research, etc.) should be regarded as the same as that of academic practitioners in other disciplines:

Exhibition and/or peer-reviewed public presentation of creative work is to be regarded as analogous to publication in other fields
Artists are entitled to safe, secure, and appropriate studio teaching spaces
Freedom of expression and inquiry must be supported and protected
Recognition of regular faculty status for professionals in the visual arts teaching at colleges or universities implies that art and design faculty will not be expected to provide professional services other than those directly related to their teaching without proper additional compensation or reduction in teaching load

Terminal Degrees

The master of fine arts (MFA) degree in art and/or design is the recognized terminal degree in the visual arts. It is considered by CAA, the National Association of Schools of Art and Design (NASAD), and the vast majority of institutions of higher education in the United States to be equivalent to terminal degrees in other fields, such as the PhD or EdD.

The MFA or equivalent professional achievement should be regarded as the appropriate qualification for appointment to professional rank, promotion, or tenure. Degrees in education and related fields shall not be required except for faculty appointed specifically to teach courses in education. Similarly, education degrees should not be regarded as constituting appropriate preparation for teaching studio art. Degree requirements for tenure and promotion must be made clear at the time of appointment; expectations cannot change during an individual’s probationary period.

Listings for Teaching Positions

Detailed information (beyond the position listing) regarding responsibilities and departmental policies should be available for any job candidate requesting such material.

For compliance, all of the following information should be available upon a candidate’s request:

A thorough description of the position, including rank and whether the position is tenure track, nontenure track, visiting, term appointment, etc.
A brief statement of departmental mission or philosophy
Course descriptions, numbers of sections, and maximum number of contact hours per week. If these items are unknown at that time, or are to be shaped to the candidate’s strengths, that too should be stated
A description of responsibilities related to advising, supervision of graduate students, gallery responsibilities, shop and classroom maintenance, office hours, etc.
Availability of studio space for the faculty member
Availability of office space for the faculty member
Availability of support for creative activity, research, and professional development through the department, the college or university, the community, etc.
Relative weights of teaching-research-service (as they apply to institutional evaluative standards for renewal, promotion, tenure, etc.)
Being discipline-specific, brief comments regarding the kinds of professional activities and honors that are considered important for regular progress toward renewal, promotion, tenure, retention, salary increases, etc.
Brief descriptions of procedures and evaluation processes used in making decisions of professional advancement
Examples: periodic meetings with chair or dean, written peer reviews, external referees or reviewers, classroom visitations, etc.
Clarification as to whether credit toward tenure will be awarded for existing teaching experience at the time of appointment
Information regarding institutional benefits and other human resources programs

Academic Advancement

The criteria for promotion, retention, and tenure for art and design faculty shall be professional achievement, teaching effectiveness, and service to the college and/or university. The criteria must be given to the candidate during the interview process. Evaluation of professional achievement and teaching effectiveness shall be carried out with the participation of other art and/or design professionals. Whenever possible, art and/or design professionals shall be represented at the first stage of promotion, tenure, renewal, and retention recommendation procedures.

Institutions and their respective art and design departments should make all matters of renewal, retention, promotion, and tenure as clear as possible and in writing to all members of the department. These matters should be made as specific as possible, making every effort to recognize a broad context for discourse and practice in contemporary art and taking into consideration that an artist may or may not work in a discipline-specific fashion. Conferences between the appropriate administrator(s) and the candidate (for promotion, tenure, etc.) should be held regularly. At the time of hiring or reclassification of an art and design position within a program (e.g., moving from part time to tenure track), the institution should provide the faculty member a written account of all previous research (creative production), teaching, and service activities that will count toward retention, tenure, and promotion.

In discussing the professional activities related to research or creative production, the relative importance of activities under those headings must be made clear and in writing to the faculty and appropriate administrators. Issues of national, regional, and local recognition must be clarified at institutions that make those distinctions, as these expressions do not hold universal meaning. Should outside referees or reviewers be part of the decision processes for professional advancement, they too should be informed of the standards and definitions used by the candidate’s institution. In addition, outside reviewers should be given a profile of the institution’s weighting of teaching and service responsibilities in tenure, retention, and promotion consideration.

Should institutional or departmental standards and criteria be changed, faculty members should be notified promptly of such changes and be allowed either to continue with the standards under which they were initially employed or be given a minimum of three years to comply with the new standards. If the candidate chooses the latter, the need for a period of adjustment should be taken into consideration in regard to the normal timetable related to renewal, retention, promotion, or tenure. Faculty on the tenure clock should have the opportunity to develop a plan with the department head or other officially designated mentor who is responsible for renewal, retention, promotion, and tenure to move from the old standards to the new if so desired, and that reasonable time be given as per the standards. Should an unexpected opportunity or personal circumstance require a leave of absence, full consideration should be given by the institution to stop the tenure clock for the requested period of time.

Teaching Loads

The full-time teaching assignments of artists should not exceed eighteen contact hours per week consonant with practices across the institution. A maximum teaching assignment of eighteen contact hours per week and twelve contact hours per week, in alternating academic terms, is suggested for faculty expected to have exemplary records of achievement in teaching, research/creative activities, and service.

Appropriate reductions in teaching loads are warranted to support research and creative activities; managing and maintaining classroom, studio, and/or gallery facilities; and administrative responsibilities.

Class Size

CAA encourages institutions to place limits of fifteen or fewer students for classes in which safety and the use of specialized equipment are major factors. Generally, to ensure quality instruction in courses in the visual arts, twenty students or fewer is appropriate. Class size of twenty-five students or more is inappropriate for effective teaching in the visual arts.

Studio capacity and the use of dangerous machinery, complicated equipment, solvents, chemicals, etc., shall be taken into consideration in determining an effective teaching and learning situation.

Evaluation of Teaching

While student evaluations are meaningful aids in determining teaching effectiveness, those involved with the faculty review should also consider the following and other items: peer reviews of teaching, course syllabi, teaching awards, innovative pedagogy, student portfolios and achievements, and student awards.

Evaluation of Artist-in-Residencies

In the evaluation of faculty participation in artist-in-residence programs, consideration should be placed on competitiveness, the applicant pool, and whether it is local, regional, national, or international in scope. The exhibition, publication, etc. of the work completed while in residence should also be considered in evaluating the experience.

Retention, Promotion, and/or Tenure Review

Information to be included in the review:

Current curriculum vitae in the format required by the institution
Documentation of teaching, including but not limited to: teaching evaluations, lists of courses taught, teaching innovations, teaching awards, teaching portfolios (including documentation of student work and sample syllabi), etc.
Visual documentation of creative work, research, and/or scholarly activity, in the format required by the institution
Documentation of exhibition record, including exhibition announcements, reviews, etc.
Documentation of collaborative artworks, situated artworks, online work, commissions, consultations, and/or curatorial work. If applicable, documentation of collaborative art efforts consistent with institutional guidelines for presentation, with clarification and identification about the candidate’s role in the collaborative efforts
Documentation assessing creative output, including reviews or articles about the candidate’s work, press releases, award notifications, grant applications, periodical references, curatorial letters, and/or other notifications
Documentation about service to the unit, institution, and community, and at the national and professional levels

The review process:

Candidates should be told at the time of appointment whether the institution or the candidate is responsible for costs associated with assembling the dossier and distributing it for external review, if applicable (return mailing, methods of delivery, etc.)
Candidates should receive in advance—preferably at the time of appointment—a timetable for the review process with all deadlines and clarification about party responsible for meeting each deadline

The appeal process:

Candidates should be informed at the time of hire about the appeal process and policies regarding the addition of new information to the dossier or file during the appeal process

External review:

The use of external reviewers is a common and respected method for evaluating the work of colleagues for promotion and tenure. Institutions using external reviewers should describe in writing—for everyone involved with the review, including the candidate and external reviewers—the role and the minimum number of reviewers required for the process
Candidates should be provided written information in regard to their role in identifying potential external reviewers. If the candidate is allowed to play an active role in the selection, he or she should be informed in writing of the nature and limits of permissible communication with the external reviewers
External reviewers should be in, or closely aligned with, the field or discipline of the candidate
External reviewers selected from academia should hold an academic rank higher than that of the candidate; external reviewers who are not in academia should similarly be of higher professional status than the candidate
External reviewers should not be current or former instructors of the candidate under review
Reviewers should be provided sufficient time, at least one month, to review the dossier and complete a report
Potential reviewers should be asked about their willingness to serve as an evaluator several months before receiving a dossier
Reviewers who agree to serve should be asked to provide an up-to-date curriculum vitae when they accept the request to review
Evaluators should be given explicit directions as to what aspects of the candidate’s professional activities should be addressed in their review; they should also be clearly informed of the deadline for the receipt of the review letter
Evaluators should be informed of the particular standards and definitions used by the candidate’s institution, including defining terms like “regional,” “national,” and “international” recognition
Reviewers should be informed of the extent to which their letters and comments are made public or kept confidential, and their own obligations of confidentiality with regard to the content of their review
Payment for writing a review is not a universal practice; payment or its absence should not in any way affect the evaluator’s opinion; contributing external evaluations constitutes an important service to the field

Other CAA Recommendations

When art and design programs define their standards of excellence, they should be founded upon realistic criteria. Research expectations should be commensurate with teaching loads, service to the institution, professional support, geographical setting of the institution, availability of studio space, changing financial conditions within the institution, etc. Teaching expectations should be commensurate with class size, facilities, teaching loads, etc.

Professional expectations should also take into consideration changes in academia, the art and design marketplace, the faculty member’s expressive medium(s), the availability of appropriate venues for public presentation of the medium(s), and so on. For some, the commercial gallery may not be a suitable indicator of excellence or national recognition.

Authors and Contributors

Committee on Standards for Retention and Tenure of Visual-Arts Faculty (2011): Jim Hopfensperger, Western Michigan University (chair); Carolyn Cardenas, Utah State University; Dana Clancy, Boston University; Andrea Eis, Oakland University; Amy Hauft, Virginia Commonwealth University; Janet Hethorn, University of Delaware; Robert Hower, University of Texas at Arlington; Patricia Olynyk, Washington University in Saint Louis; Sergio Soave, Ohio State University; Adrian Tio, University of Massachusetts, Dartmouth; Star Varner, Southwestern University.

Committee on Revising Tenure Procedures (1993): Michael Aurbach, Vanderbilt University (chair); Emma Amos, New York; Phillip Blackhurst, University of Kansas; Jon Meyer, University of Dayton; Larry Scholder, Southern Methodist University; Gregory Shelnutt, University of Mississippi; Victoria Star Varner, Indiana University; Barbara Hoffman, CAA counsel.

Revised in 2002 by the Professional Practices Committee, with D. Fairchild Ruggles, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign (chair).

Revised in 2004 by the Professional Practices Committee, with Kristi Nelson, University of Cincinnati (chair).