Policy & Committee

School of Art & Art History Governance

Printable PDF

Name and Mission

We, the members of the University of South Florida School of Art and Art History, recognize the power of images to construct and reflect the shared consciousness of a culture.  We therefore see our mission as the study of visual culture, past and present, in order to understand how images can illuminate and expand, or conceal and limit the worlds they represent; and the creation of art that explores actual, lived life and provides alternative visions for that life.

We value the shared affective and intellectual community life within which art is produced and experienced: the internal communities of the School and the University; the collaborative and interdependent communities crossing art media, art practice, theory and history; and our local and regional communities with which we seek interaction.  We emphatically embrace social diversity and respect for the individual; we encourage a sense of citizenship and a global and historical self-location.

We seek to provide a challenging learning environment of research, creativity and experimentation; we emphasize engaged, critical thinking.  We investigate new media and technologies, as well as traditional approaches.  Finally, we recognize that example is the best teacher and strive through our own creative research to embody the values we wish to impart.

Degree Programs

  • Bachelor of Arts, Art History
  • Bachelor of Arts, Studio Art
  • Bachelor of Fine Arts, Studio
  • Master of Arts, Art History
  • Master of Fine Arts, Studio
  • Minor in Art History
  • Minor in Art Studio
  • Bachelor of Fine Arts, Graphic Arts
    • Concentration in Graphic Design
    • Concentration in Illustration

Director

Duties responsible include:

  • The responsibilities listed in the Academic Director Duties document approved by the Directors Council, 10/15/03, and reviewed in spring 2005.
  • The areas listed are: Instruction related activities; University, College, and Unit Governance; Faculty, Staff and Students; Administrative; Development; Marketing; PR; Outreach; Budget and Facilities.
  • The Director will serve as an advocate for Faculty, Staff and Students and work to address the needs and concerns of the School.
  • The Director will seek the advice and consent of the faculty on the hiring of adjuncts, visiting artists and scholars, and staff; and allocation of budget and other resources.

Campus Associate Director

Appointed by the Director with Faculty consultation. 
Duties and Responsibilities include:

  • Organizational liaison between the Director and Faculty, Staff and Students.
  • Course scheduling.
  • Signatory for the Director as assigned.
  • Special projects as assigned.

Faculty

Voting member composition:

  • Permanent Full time Faculty (tenure-earning, tenured and non-tenured) – latter category may not vote on issues related to tenure-earning or tenured Faculty.
  • Non-voting members: Adjunct Faculty, Visiting Artists/Scholars Faculty.

Functions of Faculty meetings

The function of the Faculty meetings is to discuss and decide with the Director all matters pertaining to the purpose and function of the academic unit. These matters may include but are not limited to: curriculum, student financial aid, budget, research, direction and the strategic goals of the unit, student progress, student issues, tenure and promotion (tenured Faculty only), hiring of adjuncts, hiring of visiting artists and scholars, scheduling of courses, facilities.

Two meetings per semester minimum. 

Faculty, committee and similar meetings will be offered via online format as well as face-to-face when applicable. No distinction in participation, voting, discussion will be made based on the mode of attendance. Proxies, electronic voting, etc. will be developed with approval of the College Dean and administered by the SAAH Office Manager.

Staff

  • Meet regularly with Supervisor and relevant Faculty coordinators.
  • Annual evaluations as per university guidelines.
  • Supervisors should seek input from relevant users and stakeholders in preparing Annual Evaluations.
  • The School Director is assigned final hiring and supervisory responsibility as per University guidelines. 

Committees

  • Defined and determined by Faculty vote, including Staff, when relevant.
  • The School recognizes the principles of equity of assignment, resources and opportunities for faculty across a multi-campus unit.
  • Proposed by Director and acknowledged by Faculty and Staff.
  • Reasonable balance with Teaching and, if relevant, Research.
  • Reasonable and inclusive balance by sub-disciplines and campuses.

Faculty Advisory Committee

  • Member composition: This committee consists of four members of the tenure-earning and/or tenured Faculty. One member minimum from Art History and one member minimum from Graphic Arts.
  • Chair elected by the committee.
  • Advise the Director on departmental issues including but not limited to: personnel; budgetary allocations, Faculty, Staff and Student issues, departmental goals and mission, student enrollment and recruitment.
  • Collect information for the evaluation of the Director. This is undertaken in cooperation with the College Dean as per Guidelines of the College.

Faculty Senate

The School of Art & Art History will hold elections whenever the Faculty Senate seat for the department is vacant; the result will be forwarded to the Faculty Senate Office. 

Tenure and Promotion Committee and Procedures

  • Member composition: All Faculty who are tenured.
  • Chair is the most senior faculty member present or as elected by the committee.
  • Progress Toward Tenure: Annually the committee will convene in Spring semester and prepare a narrative statement of the progress of tenure-earning faculty. It will also include suggestions that will help the candidate successfully receive tenure.
  • Mid-Point Review: The committee will evaluate the Mid-Point Review materials prepared by the tenure-earning Faculty member(s) and write statements for the College T&P Committee.
  • Tenure and Promotion Applications: After review of the T&P packet of application and materials, the committee will discuss, vote, and write a summary to be included in the tenure application document.
  • Eligible voting faculty who will not be present at the meetings may submit vote/ballot to the Office Manager prior to the meetings.
  • Tenured Faculty may be asked to mentor a tenure-earning faculty member.
  • Instructors seeking promotion: Faculty will identify a review and recommendation committee that should include instructor(s) at the rank being sought by the Applicant. The committee will vote on the candidate’s application. Separately, the committee and the Director will provide a narrative in support of respective decisions to either promote or not promote the candidate. The results are sent to the Associate Dean of the College.
  • Full Professor Promotion: Committee comprised of all Full Professors in the Unit.  If there are not enough Full Professors in the Unit, Full Professors from other units may serve as the Committee.
  • Regional Chancellors will provide a formal review in promotion cases for faculty members on branch campuses “prior to a College Dean completing and forwarding a recommendation to the Provost” (See University of South Florida as “One University Geographically Distributed.”)

Visiting Artists & Scholars/Gallery Committee

  • Member composition: Faculty as determined at time of new committees for subsequent years. Chair elected by committee.
  • May also include representatives from IRA as well as students.
  • Once the anticipated budget is known, Committee Chair or Staff sends out a call for proposals. Committee makes final decisions and posts results.
  • For selected artists and scholars, the nominating Faculty member acts as “host” and assists Staff with correspondence, transportation, itinerary, liaison with students and lecture introduction.
  • For exhibitions in the Gallery, the Committee Chair works with Staff to notify exhibitors and publish the schedule.

Kennedy Family Residency

  • Faculty voted to alternate the Kennedy appointment every other year between Art History and Art Studio.
  • The respective Faculty in each of the two will establish a process for selection of the appointee. And inform the Director of the choice.
  • The Director is solely responsible for the appointment process.
  • For the selected appointee, the nominating Faculty member acts as “host” and assists staff with correspondence; course determination; formal lecture date; acclimation to the community, University and School; liaison with students.
  • The Director introduces the Kennedy appointee at the formal lecture.

Adopted by faculty vote: April 4, 2014

Curriculum Committee

This function is carried out by the Faculty Advisory Committee or by Faculty who propose changes to the curriculum.

Search Committees

  • Member composition: Follow University and College guidelines for committee membership. The core of the committee should be well represented by the Unit and/or area for which the search is designed to fulfill.
  • Search facilitator selected by the Director from Staff.
  • For Faculty searches, the committee may seek a formal meeting with all Faculty prior to making final assessments and recommendations to the Director and Dean. 
  • Staff searches should include at least one Staff member and one Faculty on the committee.
  • “Regional Chancellors or their designee will serve as a voting member on all search committees for faculty hiring on branch campuses.” (See University of South Florida as “One University Geographically Distributed.”)

Unit Areas

Areas are: Art History, Painting and Drawing, Printmaking, Sculpture and Extended Media (includes Ceramics), Photography, Video/Animation & Digital Arts (VADA), Foundations Studio (Concepts & Practices), and Graphic Arts.

Art History Area Duties

  • Advisory Committee art history representative (one-year appointment)
  • M.A. Coordinator
    • correspond with prospective students year-round
    • oversee dissemination of information to prospective students (paper material, etc.)
    • meet with prospective students during academic year
    • oversee program advertisement and recruitment materials
    • conduct annual orientation for new M.A. students
    • advise M.A. students throughout year on their coursework, TA-ships, future studies and professional work- advise M.A. students on thesis committee assignments and questioners for defenses, including all paperwork
    • oversee TA assignments
    • oversee admissions process, including all official correspondence, determination of fellowships and TA-ships
    • organize and coordinate M.A. Candidacy Presentations,
    • oversee M.A. program and curriculum, initiate discussion of possible changes, research initiatives
    • no summer assignment other than correspondence with prospective student
  • Art History Coordinator (one year appointment)
    • create class schedule for fall and spring
    • initiate meetings and set agendas
    • serve as liaison between Director/staff and art historians when decisions need to be made or meetings arranged
    • oversee and delegate tasks for annual art history reception (fall or spring)
    • serve as liaison between Art Advisor and faculty when decisions about course substitutions, waiving requirements, etc., come up.
  • Website Coordinator
    • oversee updating of student and faculty information
    • post events
    • keep lists of graduate symposia, grants, and other opportunities up-to-date
  • Website Coordinator (liaison to Unit Tech Staff)
    • oversee updating of student and faculty information
    • post events
    • keep lists of graduate symposia, grants, and other opportunities up to date
  • Liaison to student-run Art History Association
  • Jury for art history prize at student show (two required) in spring
  • All-faculty responsibilities:
    • Admissions (spring)
    • M.A. Candidacy presentations (usually once a year)
    • Thesis committees
    • Oral exams
    • Attendance at annual art history reception for grads and faculty (fall or spring) Thesis advising: faculty advisors and advisees inform themselves about Graduate School due dates during final semester; faculty advisor or advisee announces thesis defense on art history website
  • Area Coordinators
    • Submission of proposed Area teaching schedule to Office.
    • Representative to the Office and the Director on behalf of the Area.
    • Primary liaison with Staff relevant to Area.
  • Graduate Program Coordinators
    • Appointed by the Director
    • Primary liaison for graduate students; issues and concerns related to the graduate programs.
    • Establish calendar deadlines.
    • Assignment of work spaces (offices and studios).
    • Recruitment and interviews with prospective students.
    • Nominate students for awards.
    • Participate in Orientation.
    • Maintain Procedures and ensure posting on website and University catalog.

Appointments of Graduate Assistants

Studio:

  • Maintain Procedures and ensure posting on website and University catalog.
  • Second priority – Graduate Students should be assigned to learn to teach. (The assignment of students should be first to faculty who are teaching combined courses when available. Students should be assigned to learn to teach in classes when combination classes are not available. Please note Faculty are not guaranteed a graduate student to assist if they are not teaching a combination class. No student should be assigned to two classes to learn to teach.  Graduate students may be required to take Instructional Techniques class to be eligible to teach the next semester at the discretion of faculty in area.
  • Third Priority – Assist in area as needed and agreed upon by Area Head and Director. Due to funding cuts the numbers of the assistants available to area are subject to reduction. Faculty should avoid using 1st year Graduate Students as strictly area assistants as they should be preparing the graduate students to become effective solo teachers.”

Policy approved by Studio Faculty, Aug 17/18, 2009

Summer Teaching

While conforming to University and Faculty Union policies and advisories regarding Summer Teaching Assignments, and taking into consideration any budget, credit hour productivity and/or graduation targets, the School of Art and Art History faculty have voted to use a rotation plan for making Summer Teaching Assignments whenever possible.

That is, faculty who have taught in a preceding summer will be at a lower priority for the subsequent year than those who did not teach the previous summer.

The Director of the School will also consider requests in previous years and new faculty appointments in making final assignments.

Policy approved by Faculty July, 2013

Emeritus Status

As per University Guidelines, the process of a retiring professor attaining “Emeritus” status is launched by a letter from the professor indicating an interest in holding the Emeritus title – OR by a nomination letter from a faculty member in the department.

Upon the reception of the letter or nomination, the Director will submit the action to the Tenure-earning and Tenured Faculty for a simple vote and comments.

The Director will forward the initial letter/nomination to the Dean accompanied by a letter from the Director, endorsing, or not endorsing, the nomination.  The letter should briefly evaluate the candidate’s record as a faculty member. 

Amending the Governance Document

The Governance Document may be amended by a simple majority vote of the regular faculty.

Amendment i

Annual faculty evaluations: guidelines & criteria

(approved by Faculty and Provost’s Office, May 2023)

Annual evaluation of the faculty of the School of Art and Art History (SAAH) is conducted in accordance with College of Design, Art & Performance (CDAP) and university guidelines. Annual evaluation forms an essential part of other institutional processes, namely the evaluation of progress toward tenure and/or promotion (as appropriate), and in determining raises and merit pay.

Evaluation of activity and contributions is based on a collection of information uploaded into Archivum by the faculty member; School staff (e.g., assigned faculty duties); and University data systems (e.g., student teaching evaluations). Deadlines for the faculty member’s submission of materials are provided by the office of the SAAH Director during the fall or early spring semesters. Faculty are urged to be timely in the submission of reports, and comprehensive and clear in the inclusion of information and supporting documentation.

Faculty are evaluated in areas in which they have been assigned effort. For tenured and tenure-earning faculty, this typically includes Teaching, Research/Creative Activity, and Service; for fulltime professors of instruction, this includes Teaching and possibly Service and Research/Creative Activity. The distribution of effort percentages among assigned faculty duties is determined by the SAAH Director in agreement with the faculty member. Faculty members are encouraged to consult with the Director before submitting their annual evaluation materials if there appear to be any discrepancies. If faculty feel there are instances of inequity in their assignment, they are likewise encouraged to discuss with the Director at the earliest opportunity.

The annual evaluation is first conducted by peers in the SAAH Faculty Advisory Committee, whose members are appointed by the Director each year and which represents the sub-units comprising the School (Art History, Art Studio, and Graphic Arts). Faculty are also evaluated, separately, by the Director. Faculty assigned to the St. Petersburg and Sarasota-Manatee campuses are additionally evaluated by administrators on their respective campuses or the College Dean.

Criteria outlined below under the areas of Teaching, Research/Creative Activity, and Service are consistent with SAAH, CDAP, and larger USF expectations for continuation of contracts and tenure and/or promotion. Faculty working toward tenure and/or promotion should familiarize themselves with the tenure and promotion guidelines and take these under advisement during each year’s activities.

The rating scale used in the categories of evaluation is as follows. Further explanation of expectations can be found in the respective areas of Teaching, Research/Creative Activity, and Service below.
                        5 – Outstanding
                        4 – Strong
                        3 – Satisfactory
                        2 – Weak
                        1 – Unacceptable

In addition to numerical ratings in each category, brief overall narrative reports are contributed by the Faculty Advisory Committee and Director. At the conclusion of the evaluation process, faculty have the opportunity to review the ratings and reports and confirm receipt. They may also request a meeting with the Faculty Advisory Committee and/or Director to discuss the evaluation.

I. TEACHING

Collective and all-faculty teaching is frequent in our program—during formal and informal reviews, critiques and discussions. Faculty therefore have ample opportunity for direct observation of each other's activities as teachers, and are able, on this basis, to evaluate teaching competence. The professional judgment of sub-unit peers is therefore an important basis of assessing criteria.

Student teaching evaluations automatically appear in Archivum. Faculty should additionally include copies of course syllabi and any other materials which they feel will be helpful in the evaluation process. Narratives should reflect not only on the faculty member’s teaching accomplishments but their commitment to pedagogy and efforts to improve.

For Teaching, all SAAH faculty are evaluated according to the following scale:

  • Outstanding (5): Typified by exceptional contribution through activities listed below.
    Consistent teaching excellence is demonstrated through the faculty member’s syllabi, course evaluations, and other submitted materials. Courses are rigorous, innovative, thoughtfully planned and sequenced, and up-to-date in the faculty member’s discipline. Syllabi include all University-required elements and clearly explain course objectives, learning outcomes, and assessments. When a sufficient percentage of evaluations have been returned for a course, these meet and often exceed School/College averages. If assigned duties include graduate teaching and/or other student mentoring, faculty effort and student success in these areas are extensive. The faculty member has undertaken additional teaching-related activities as appropriate for their rank and assignment and/or has received formal recognition of their teaching excellence through awards or other means. Through their narrative and activities, the faculty member shows exceptional commitment to pedagogy and continued improvement of their teaching.

  • Strong (4): Typified by positive contribution through the activities listed below.
    The faculty member’s teaching is characterized as high quality through syllabi, course evaluations, and other submitted materials. Courses are well planned, of appropriate rigor, and consistent with the standards of the faculty member’s discipline. Syllabi include all University-required elements and clearly explain course objectives, learning outcomes, and assessments. When a sufficient percentage of evaluations have been returned for a course, these meet or exceed School/College averages. If assigned duties include graduate teaching and/or other student mentoring, faculty effort and student success are commendable. The faculty member may have undertaken additional teaching-related activities as appropriate for their rank and assignment. Through their narrative and activities, the faculty member shows high commitment to pedagogy and continued improvement of their teaching.

  • Satisfactory (3): Typified by nominal contribution through the activities listed below.
    The faculty member’s teaching is characterized as acceptable through syllabi, course evaluations, and other submitted materials. Courses reach a minimum standard in terms of planning and rigor but do not display sufficient innovation or efforts to update course curriculum. Syllabi include all University-required elements and explain course objectives, learning outcomes, and assessments, although perhaps not with appropriate clarity. When a sufficient percentage of evaluations have been returned for a course, these mostly meet but do not exceed School/College averages. If assigned duties include graduate teaching and/or other student mentoring, faculty effort and student success are nominal. Through their narrative and activities, the faculty member shows some commitment to pedagogy and improvement of their teaching, but more investment of effort is needed.

  • Weak (2): Typified by unsatisfactory effort and evidence of ineffective teaching activities.
    Syllabi, course evaluations, and other submitted materials reveal unsatisfactory performance by the faculty member in terms of course design, content, and/or delivery. Syllabi may not include all University-required elements and lack clear explanation of course objectives, learning outcomes, and assessments. When a sufficient percentage of evaluations have been returned for a course, these do not meet School/College averages. The faculty member’s efforts in other teaching-related activities are limited. Major improvements are needed.

  • Unacceptable (1): Negligible effort with regards to teaching activities.

Potential Teaching Activities/Accomplishments:
Typical teaching activities can include (but are not limited to):

  • Course developments and improvements
    Development of new, diverse, inclusive curriculum at the undergraduate and/or graduate levels (depending on assignment). Highly developed and diverse syllabi should show links and engagement beyond the limits of the discipline and should indicate original approaches to teaching relevant ideas and themes.

  • Involvement in graduate teaching & MA and MFA graduate thesis (supervisory) committees
    (when applicable)
    Involvement in graduate teaching, which is primarily by invitation, and service on MA and MFA graduate thesis (supervisory) committees. Service on MA, MFA, and PhD thesis/dissertation committees in other USF departments or at other institutions beyond USF also falls into this category.

  • Numerical student evaluations and accompanying student comments
    Interpretation of University-administered student evaluations takes into account class size, the nature and level of the course, the percentage of students submitting evaluations, and other factors as relevant. Large and required undergraduate courses are often evaluated differently than smaller, advanced courses. Ratings above the departmental/college averages and positive student comments contribute favorably toward the evaluation.

  • Student mentoring
    Quality of student accomplishment; records of students who excel in further studies elsewhere or who excel in related careers are often indications of outstanding teaching. Direct evidence in the form of letters may be sought to verify the contribution.
  • Teaching awards and other recognition of teaching accomplishments
    Recognition for teaching, e.g., awards, honors, grants or fellowships.
  • Inviting and hosting visiting artists, scholars, and lecturers
    The School takes great pride in arranging an ambitious schedule of visiting artists and scholars each year. These engagements complement the learning of students and provide opportunities for extended consideration in the classroom. Guest lecturers are normally hosted by faculty and this contribution, in turn, is evaluated as part of the Teaching review.
  • Presentations in other courses, at teaching workshops, and/or at pedagogical conferences
    Invitations to speak or consult in other courses, publish, or make presentations about teaching. Outstanding teaching will result in a faculty member being sought out, within and outside the School, to teach and to consult on matters of teaching.
  • Participation in teaching workshops
    The growth of faculty and the strength of educational programs are directly dependent upon faculty staying current within their respective fields on matters of pedagogy. The time, effort, and training involved in these areas can be substantial and is evaluated under Teaching.
  • Peer evaluations
    Faculty may invite a peer faculty member to attend their course(s) and submit observations to be included in the Annual Evaluation report.
  • Publishing a textbook(s) or journal articles/book chapters related directly to pedagogy/teaching
II. RESEARCH/CREATIVE ACTIVITY

Lists of potential research/creative activities to be documented and criteria for annual evaluation appear below for each sub-unit of the School. It is the faculty member’s responsibility to include sufficient information to assist the Faculty Advisory Committee and Director in the evaluation process. Faculty should be clear about the current stage of publications/projects in progress and work accomplished during the year, and provide supporting evidence as necessary. If participating in a collaborative project, the faculty member should be specific about his/her contribution. Faculty may include information about mitigating circumstances in their narrative, such as unforeseen delays in a publication or project.

Faculty working toward tenure and/or promotion should be cognizant of the expectations outlined in the USF and SAAH Tenure and Promotion Guidelines and strategically build their research/creative agenda. Tenure-earning faculty in particular are encouraged to discuss their ongoing research progress with the Director with a view toward their eventual application.

ART HISTORY:

Because no two faculty members’ yearly research contributions are expected to be identical, these are intended as general guidelines and are further impacted by the scope of a faculty member’s specific activities. Research activities will be evaluated with an eye to quality as much as quantity, e.g., the quality of the press, journal, or other venue with regards to a publication (acceptance rate or other data may be included here as relevant); the prestige and source (external, internal) of a grant, fellowship, or other award (including AAU standards where relevant); whether a conference was international, national, or regional in scope; whether the publication/talk/conference paper was an invited contribution, suggesting the faculty member’s standing in the field; whether an article/chapter was refereed/peer-reviewed; the quality of published reviews of a monograph/edited volume; etc.

As in other fields of the humanities, art history publications typically take years to produce and appear. Faculty should be clear about the current stage of work in progress and limit their narrative to work accomplished during the year under review. Faculty may include information about mitigating circumstances in their narrative, such as a lengthy process of peer review or obtaining illustrations for a particular publication, funding issues delaying travel or the acquisition of illustrations, etc.

For Research/Creative Activity, Art History faculty are evaluated according to the following scale:

  • Outstanding (5): Typified through a heightened level of impact, productivity, and innovation suitable for the faculty member at the national and/or international level, represented through creative production and/or scholarly efforts such as those outlined below. Examples of Outstanding achieve or exceed expectations in research and include multiple items or a few high-impact items such as national or international publications, solo or group exhibitions, fairs/markets, film festivals, conferences, clients, commissions, grants, fellowships, residencies, lectures, awards, and other manifestations of reputable peer-review. For in-progress research and creative activity, Outstanding is also marked by significant progress and innovation. Examples are not limited to the items listed above.
  • Strong (4): Typified through a moderate level of impact, productivity, and innovation suitable for the faculty member at the national, international level, or regional level represented through creative production and/or scholarly efforts such as those outlined below. Examples of Strong satisfy the expectations in research and include a smaller number of items or medium-impact items such as national or regional publications, solo or group exhibitions, fairs/markets, film festivals, conferences, commissions, grants, fellowships, residencies, lectures, awards, and other methods of reputable peer-review. For in-progress research and creative activity, Strong is also marked by demonstrable growth and progression toward goals. Examples are not limited to the listed above.
  • Satisfactory (3): Typified through a nominal level of impact, productivity, and innovation suitable for the faculty member at the national, international level, or regional level represented through creative production and/or scholarly efforts such as those outlined below. Examples of Satisfactory barely meet the expectations in research and include a minimal number of items or low-impact items such as regional or local publications, solo or group exhibitions, fairs/markets, film festivals, conferences, commissions, grants, fellowships, residencies, lectures, awards, and other methods of reputable peer-review. For in-progress research and creative activity, Satisfactory is also marked by limited growth and progression toward goals. Examples are not limited to the listed above.
  • Weak (2): Typified through unsatisfactory effort and evidence of progress represented through low creative/scholarly production.
  • Unacceptable (1): Negligible effort with regards to creative/scholarly production.

Potential Research/Creative Activities and Accomplishments:
Below is a list of possible types of peer-reviewed research. Creative or scholarly written work that does not fit one of the categories is equally encouraged. Please add the appropriate category or file under “Other Peer Reviews.” As the Graphic Arts discipline spans the realm of the visual arts, peer review merit may include everything from fine art to commercial design; thus, it is important to mention that the Graphic Arts faculty equally value and encourage both traditional and alternative types of peer review, including professional/commercial practices.

  • Publications (books, journals, magazines, papers, blogs, websites, catalogs, newspapers, etc.)
  • Public Exhibitions/Gallery Events
  • Presentations/Participation at Conferences, Institutions, Professional Organizations, Fairs/Markets, and/or Film Festivals
  • Residencies
  • Professional Travel
  • Commissions
  • Client Work
  • Pro Bono Work
  • Artworks Acquired by Recognized Institutions
  • Other Completed and Disseminated Work
  • Awards/Honors
  • Grants/Fellowships
  • Written Peer Reviews or Letters of Recommendation
  • Other Peer Reviews

 For each research item, please specify the following details as appropriate:

  1. The name of your research
  2. The name of the publication, venue, conference, etc.
  3. The type/nature of the research (writing, creative, or both)
  4. The name and title of the juror, curator, editor, or peer reviewer
  5. The location published, exhibited, or disseminated
  6. The stage of completion: Completed, In Progress, Applied For

  7. The date(s) published, exhibited, or in the case of in-progress, please provide a general expected timeline.

  8. Specify if the research has local, regional, national, or international impact. Provide details about the scope, impact, or significance of the research (for instance, where it was published, the total number of applicants, people attending the event, subscribers, editions printed, etc.).

  9. Provide any auxiliary documentation, details, and special considerations
III. SERVICE

Faculty members are expected to serve on committees and undertake other service endeavors within a) the School, College, and University at large; b) their professional field/discipline; and c) in the community. The service load will differ among faculty and across ranks; tenure-earning faculty will have fewer service-related activities than tenured faculty. Fulltime professors of instruction might have service among their assigned duties.

To assist the evaluation process, faculty should explain the nature of each service activity; their particular responsibilities, contributions, and any leadership positions held; whether they were elected or invited/appointed to the committee, board, etc. (as relevant); and the span/length of time devoted to the activity. Faculty may include additional information and documentation as they wish. Because some service activities entail deeper involvement and time commitment than others, these guidelines do not specify a particular number. However, faculty should demonstrate substantive engagement in one or more of the service areas listed above each year to achieve high evaluations in this category, as consistent with their current rank and assigned duties. As faculty advance in rank and experience, they should expand their service activities accordingly: for example, by undertaking more leadership roles.

For Service, all SAAH faculty are evaluated according to the following scale, as consistent with rank and assigned duties:

  • Outstanding (5): Typified by showing exceptional effort or improvement though the activities listed below. The faculty member has participated in service activities appropriate for their rank and assigned duties and demonstrated significant initiative and engagement in those activities.  The faculty member attends School and College faculty meetings regularly. If senior faculty, the faculty member has taken leadership roles where appropriate and where opportunity has arisen, and/or has participated in professional and/or community activities that show their engagement with their discipline. Being invited to take part in professional/community service activities speaks particularly well to a faculty member’s reputation beyond the University.
  • Strong (4): Typified by showing positive effort or improvement though the activities listed below. The faculty member has participated in service activities appropriate for their rank and assigned duties and demonstrated consistent engagement in those activities. The faculty member attends School and College faculty meetings regularly. If senior faculty, the faculty member has been active but might consider more leadership roles moving forward and/or more engagement in professional and/or community activities.
  • Satisfactory (3): Typified by showing nominal effort or improvement though the activities listed below. The faculty member has demonstrated adequate participation in service activities for their rank and assigned duties, but greater effort and engagement are needed moving forward.
  • Weak (2): Typified by showing unsatisfactory effort or improvement though the activities listed below. The faculty member’s service activities are minimal.
  • Unacceptable (1): Negligible effort with regards to service activities.

Service Contribution Categories:
Service falls into three general categories: to the university, the profession, and the community. University service is further divided into service to the School, College, and University at large.

Typical service contribution categories include (but are not limited to):

  1. Active participation in sub-unit, School, College, and University faculty meetings
  2. Active participation in sub-unit, School, College, and University committees, including in leadership roles (e.g., as chair)
  3. Serving in School administrative assignments, including as an area/sub-unit coordinator
  4. Serving as a committee member, officer, or board member in a local, state, regional, national or international professional field, organization, and/or for publications
  5. Membership on local, regional, national, and international art commissions
  6. Responding to community and campus requests for collaboration in the faculty member’s area of expertise
  7. Maintaining relationships with local and regional cultural institutions in the faculty member’s area of expertise
  8. Service as a faculty advisor to student clubs or for student events
  9. Service as an external reviewer for tenure and promotion cases at other institutions
  10. Service as a peer reviewer for manuscripts under consideration at a journal or publisher and/or for grant/fellowship applications
  11. Presentations in the community that do not otherwise fall under Research/Creative Activity or Teaching and are relevant to the faculty member’s discipline/area of expertise

Evaluation of St. Petersburg Faculty   In addition to the Annual Evaluation by the Faculty Advisory Committee and the Director, “Regional Chancellors or their designee will provide ‘formal written input...prior to a College Dean or Vice President completing the [performance] appraisal.’ “(See University of South Florida as “One University Geographically Distributed.”)

Conflict of Interest Statement: Faculty may not evaluate spouses, partners, etc. for Annual Evaluations or any other means of evaluation – grants, for instance.

All Revisions to the Original By Laws and Amendment I approved by the majority of faculty vote and approved by the Office of the Provost, May, 2023.