Skip Navigation

Menu Join Now Log In
Annual Conference 2026
                 Donate
Join Now      Sign In
 

Standards & Guidelines » CAA Guidelines

Standards for Reappointment, Promotion, and Tenure of Art Historians

Adopted by the CAA Board of Directors on February 21, 1996; revised in October 2002; May 2005; October 25, 2009; May 2, 2010; May 2, 2021; and November 9, 2025.

Preface

CAA has established the following standards with respect to the Reappointment, Promotion, and Tenure of Art Historians, a copy of which has been sent to every accrediting body in the United States and to institutional members of CAA accompanied by a letter from the current president of the association, urging each accrediting body to recognize the standards as appropriate for any collegiate art history program.

CAA encourages institutions to maintain their diverse and unique departmental missions, recognizing that such diversity makes it critical that applicants be provided with as much information as possible. Furthermore, CAA notes that, before implementing the document’s recommendations, it is very important that individual institutions recognize the differences in reappointment, promotion, and tenure standards in diverse institutions, including but not limited to two-year colleges, universities with a dominant pedagogic focus, and research-heavy institutions. Identifying and articulating acceptable standards that address local needs and cultures and that are also compatible with the principles laid out in this CAA standard should be the goal of each institution.

Terminal Degrees

The doctor of philosophy (PhD) is usually the terminal degree for art historians, though another doctoral-level degree with scholarly work that contributes to the field of art history may take its place. In the case of two-year colleges, the minimum qualification for teaching appointments should be a master of arts (MA) in art history. In the absence of such a degree, specific recognized equivalent professional achievement and scholarship should be regarded as qualification for appointment to professional rank, promotion, or tenure.

The doctor of education (EdD), the master of fine arts (MFA), or other related degrees may be a suitable equivalent for faculty teaching in programs that combine art history with emerging fields such as visual studies, visual culture studies, and digital media. The use of adjunct faculty with full-time positions in related professional areas is appropriate, especially in disciplines such as museology and historic preservation. The academic degrees held by these professionals may also vary from the norm. For further clarification, please see the CAA Statement on Terminal Degree Programs in the Visual Arts and Design.

Criteria for Reappointment and Promotion

Colleges and universities should make certain that their policies and procedures relating to matters of reappointment, promotion, and tenure are clear, concrete, and made available to each faculty member when they are hired. In addition, said policies shall be supplemented with more specific criteria as relevant to art historians, whether as members of a distinct art history department or as members of a broader disciplinary or academic unit. Unless the candidate being evaluated for reappointment, promotion, or tenure is the sole art historian in the academic department, other art historians shall be consulted during the first stages of the review process and should be represented on any department review committee.

In order to give probationary art history faculty the best opportunity for success, a senior faculty member should be assigned to serve as a mentor for the promotion and tenure process, whenever possible. Such a mentor would be available to answer questions and respond to concerns of the new faculty member and would make sure their work is appropriately progressing to achieve professional advancement.

Reviews of each faculty member’s record in the three areas of research, service, and teaching should be held on a regular schedule, in accordance with institutional policies.

Should department or institutional standards or requirements for research, service, or teaching substantially change during the probationary period of a faculty member, the candidate should either be allowed to continue to serve under the standards in force at the time of initial appointment or be given an appropriate amount of time (normally three additional years) to meet the new standards.

CAA strongly urges institutions to comply with AAUP standards with respect to the length of probationary periods.

All candidates for reappointment, promotion, or tenure should be informed in writing of the specific timetable for decisions, be presented full information in writing about their status after each review, and given the opportunity to respond to the review.

Criteria for Research and Creative Activities:

  • Definitions of scholarly accomplishment should be clarified by the institution. It is up to the candidate to demonstrate how their scholarship meets the criteria of their institution. That may include documentation of the status of any works-in-progress, including those that may not yet be published, and making the case for its inclusion for tenure and/or promotion consideration.
  • There should be a clear expression of the level of recognition demanded of the candidate for advancement in rank or to tenure, whether local, regional, or national. Such level of recognition must be realistic and consistent with the teaching load and research and financial support available to the individual faculty member.
  • The association recommends that judgments of the quality of a candidate’s publications should be based on the assessment of reviewers who have read the work and can compare it to the state of scholarship in the field to which it contributes.
  • Should outside referees or reviewers be consulted as part of the decision process of promotion and tenure, they must be informed of both the institution’s and the department’s standards and expectations, including the relative weight accorded research, service, and teaching. Recognizing the differences in the missions of various institutions of higher education, the outside reviewer should be asked to limit the review of published research (or manuscript) to its quality and contribution to the candidate’s field, without commenting on the likelihood or suitability of tenure for the candidate. Note that the primary judge of the quality of scholarship remains the disciplinary faculty within the institution in conjunction with evidence of outside disciplinary peer review.
  • CAA endorses the inclusion of museum exhibition and collection catalogs as part of a scholar’s publications. Although not peer-reviewed in a traditional sense, these publications consist of serious scholarly research and should be treated as such.
  • For those art historians whose research is dependent on travel to distant and/or international locations there should be clear recognition of the financial and time implications of such travel on the faculty member’s productivity.
  • For those art historians whose research is intended for the public or a specific community rather than primarily an academic audience, there should be a clear recognition of the time and effort that the individual has put in. Examples of public and community-based scholarship may encompass a range of activities, including though not limited to curating exhibitions, conducting oral art history projects, participating in Indigenous ceremonies, writing policy, participating in community forums, engaging in public art projects, and negotiating repatriation cases. As public and community-based scholarship is often ephemeral, art historians should document their activities and articulate their impact. Modes of documentation and impact may include, for example, a research portfolio, letters from community members documenting the research project’s impact on or benefit to the members of a community, and an accounting of grants acquired.
  • For those art historians whose research is intended for the public or a specific community rather than primarily an academic audience, there should be a clear recognition of the time and effort that the individual has put in. Examples of public and community-based scholarship may encompass a range of activities, including though not limited to curating exhibitions, conducting oral art history projects, participating in Indigenous ceremonies, writing policy, participating in community forums, engaging in public art projects, and negotiating repatriation cases. As public and community-based scholarship is often ephemeral, art historians should document their activities and articulate their impact. Modes of documentation and impact may include, for example, a research portfolio, letters from community members documenting the research project’s impact on or benefit to the members of a community, and an accounting of grants acquired.
  • For those art historians working in collaborations and/or in digital scholarship, there should be clear recognition of the time and effort that the individual candidate has put in and the impact of the scholarship (see CAA’s Guidelines for Evaluating Digital Scholarship in Art and Architectural History).
  • For those art historians in tenure-track curatorial positions, CAA recommends that their dossier include a framing statement that links the candidate’s research projects to the museum’s and/or collection’s mission as well as illustrates how the projects demonstrate originality, contribute to the scholar’s field, and point to directions for development in the future. As curatorial projects are often ephemeral, it is particularly essential that unwritten scholarship be carefully documented through photographs, published brochures, exhibition labels, posters, links to online exhibitions, copies of supporting grants, published reviews, etc. to help the external evaluator assess the caliber of research presented in support of the tenure and/or promotion cases. As members of the departmental review committee may not be familiar with the particular nature of the tenure- track curator’s program of teaching and research, CAA also recommends that whenever possible at least one member of the review committee be knowledgeable about academic museums and related appointments (see CAA’s Standards for Tenure-Track Curatorial Appointments).
  • Some faculty make the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning (SoTL) part of their research agenda. SoTL entails presenting innovative scholarly arguments about pedagogical best practices. As in other research, SoTL scholars define intellectual problems in the field from a foundation of theory and practice, systematically collect evidence, evaluate literature or build theory, and come to reasoned conclusions. Because SoTL has a meaningful role in the work of our profession, institutions have a responsibility to recognize contributions to this field in making decisions concerning hiring, contract renewal, tenure, and promotion. CAA strongly encourages schools and departments to consider how they will recognize and reward engagement with SoTL as a measure of effectiveness of teaching in the discipline and as a valid research field. SoTL products may be shared and evaluated using processes that have been developed for the consideration of other forms of academic research such as conference presentations and peer-reviewed or invited articles, books, and book chapters. Because of SoTL’s focus on practice, consideration should also be given to academic publication efforts that favor expedited publications. SoTL research can also gain traction in a variety of non-peer reviewed outlets, such as blogs and other media. This work should be considered in the same way public scholarship is for reappointment, promotion, and tenure, because of its wide engagement. (Adapted from the work of the American Historical Association’s Working Group on SoTL in History)

Teaching Loads and Class Size

When assessing teaching effectiveness for the purposes of reappointment, promotion, and tenure, evaluators should keep in mind that the full-time teaching assignments of art historians vary considerably across two-year colleges, four-year liberal arts schools, and research universities.

Service

While service to the department and institution may be expected of even the most junior faculty, it is preferable to avoid making substantial demands on probationary teachers and scholars. Service requirements to the university and community, including giving public lectures or working with local organizations, vary at different institutions. Faculty should be made aware of the expectations for promotion and reappointment at their institutions.

Supporting Resources

The reader is also advised of related CAA policies that may help further clarify standards, procedures, peer review, or other issues raised in this document in particular cases. These include but are not limited to:

  • Standards for Tenure-Track Curatorial Appointments
  • Peer Review in Publications
  • Guidelines for Evaluating Digital Scholarship in Art and Architectural History

Authors and Contributors

Submitted in 1996 by the Professional Practices Committee: David Sokol, University of Illinois, Chicago (Chair); Emma Amos, Rutgers University; Michael Aurbach, Vanderbilt University; Phillip Blackhurst, University of Kansas; Judith Brodsky, Mason Gross School of the Arts, Rutgers University; Whitney Davis, Northwestern University; Kathleen Desmond Easter, Central Missouri State University; Samuel Edgerton, Williams College; Dennis Ichiyama, Purdue University; Dorothy Joiner, West Georgia College; Jon Meyer, University of Arizona; Jock Reynolds, Addison Gallery of American Art; James G. Rogers Jr., Florida Southern College; Larry Scholder, Southern Methodist University; Susan Sensemann, University of Illinois, School of Art and Design; Gregory Shelnutt, University of Mississippi; Adrian R. Tio, Bowling Green State University; Victoria Star Varner, Southwestern University; Monica Visonà, Metropolitan State College of Denver; Annette Weintraub, City College of New York, City University of New York; and Barbara Hoffman, Schwartz Weiss Steckler Hoffman.

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

Addendum in 2005 by the Publications Committee: Nicola Courtright (Chair), Amherst College; Susan Elizabeth Chun, Metropolitan Museum of Art; S. Hollis Clayson, Northwestern University; Marc Gotlieb, University of Toronto; Dale Kinney, Bryn Mawr College; Winifred McNeill, New Jersey City University; Patricia C. Phillips, State University of New York, New Paltz; John Paul Ricco, University of Nevada, Las Vegas; and Larry Silver, University of Pennsylvania.

Addendum in 2010 by Helen Evans, Metropolitan Museum of Art; Lucy Oakley, Grey Art Gallery, New York University; and the Publications Committee: Anne Collins Goodyear (Chair), National Portrait Gallery, Smithsonian Institution; Randall C. Griffin, Southern Methodist University; Karin Higa, Japanese American National Museum; Natalie Kampen, Barnard College; Karen Lang, University of Southern California; and Katy Siegel, Hunter College, City University of New York.

Reviewed and revised in 2019–21 by Denise Amy Baxter, Carolyn Butler-Palmer, Laura Gelfand, Paul Jaskot, Charles Kanwischer, and Sandy Ng.

Reviewed and revised in 2025 by Rachael Barron-Duncan, Rebecca Easby, Susan Moore, and Marice Rose.