The evaluation of Research Scholarship and Creative/Professional Work (broadly defined) for promotion and tenure requires the assessment of three primary criteria:

  • the amount of work completed (quantity);
  • the quality of the completed work; and
  • the impact of the work.


The members of the department accept the following broad guidelines:

  • The publication of a scholarly book will be considered sufficient for tenure. Additional articles in peer-reviewed journals could strengthen the application. In the absence of a book, a minimum of five articles in peer-reviewed journals are comparable. Essays in peer-reviewed edited collections will also be accepted as a part of the total dossier. The key consideration in reviewing published material of any sort is that it has gone through rigorous peer review. The candidate should be sure to document this process for every publication.
  • Similarly, in the case of creative/professional work, film and video-makers are expected to produce the equivalent of a feature film (in scope, complexity, effort, and contribution to the field), either as a single production or as “shorts” OR work in a significant creative role in at least TWO major productions. (Please see the “Faculty Roles” section for clarification). For artists who exhibit in gallery or museum spaces, a solo exhibition in a nationally recognized gallery or alternative art space, or inclusion in a major museum exhibition, or a major public art commission, or at least three group shows, all properly peer acknowledged, reviewed and evaluated by prestige, visibility and selectivity will be considered sufficient for tenure.


Regardless of the quantity of the work completed, any publication or creative/professional activity must meet the standard of national recognition and promise of distinction. This must involve rigorous peer-review and/or recognition of significance to the field in order to argue that the work is of sufficient quality to merit promotion or tenure.

The candidate is encouraged to submit evidence of the quality of the work. This can take the form of:

  • Information about the quality of the selection/publication/distribution process. This is determined by three criteria: the competitiveness, the selectivity, and the prestige of the venue.
  • Documented reviews or evaluations by others with expertise in the area. The reputation of the reviewer is critical to the argument for the quality of the work.
  • The appearance of the work in the citations of other published works is important. The prestige of the publication source containing the citation will also be taken into account. (See “Review and Distribution” below).


Though quantity and quality are two important evaluative criteria, evidence of the impact of work also provides a strong case for its value. Impact can be difficult to gauge and varies greatly across disciplines so that it is impossible to create an exhaustive list here. Impact can be gauged according to an artist’s career trajectory. Possible examples include:

  • a gallery exhibit or film screening that led to a one-person show;
  • a museum exhibit that led to a gallery exhibit at an even more prestigious venue;
  • an article or talk that led to a book contract;
  • a film screening that led to a distribution contract; or
  • a community-based project that led to another, more expansive or more highly visible community based project.

Impact, as stated above in quality can be evaluated according to a listing of citations, or for art, references in reviews or write-ups of the work by others. The candidate should craft the narrative and provide evidence of the impact of their work on the field.

Another dimension to be considered is social impact. Social impact is defined as research and/or creative work that directly benefits communities or publics outside of one’s professional circles, and/or provides concrete and actionable solutions to societal problems.

Faculty work in this area is defined as scholarship or creative work made with the intention of challenging and changing social and political factors that cause social problems. While this work might begin with traditional process and outcome (i.e. scholarly publications, documentary film, art installation, the assessment of community leaders), it can take many different forms, including participatory community processes, scalable interventions, apps or digital tools, pedagogical resources, or organizational capacity building.

To demonstrate social impact, the faculty member must be able to document positive impact on society, through changes in a community, a specific policy, an organization, etc. Demonstrating impact should be methodical and use accepted metrics, including number of participants and reach of the project within the target community, specific policy changes, and/or events or actions that are the direct result of the project. See guidelines under “Review and Distribution” below for ways to document.

Professional Appearances

All faculty are encouraged to participate in panels, symposia, and other professional appearances. However, these activities will not substitute for creative/professional/scholarly achievements in the candidate’s principal area of appointment except in cases outlined above or if a Memorandum of Understanding has been secured between the candidate, the Dean and the Provost as to the significance and equivalence of these activities.

External Funding, Fellowships, and Residencies

External funding, fellowships and residencies are an important resource for both researchers and artists. There is a wide spectrum of grants, fellowships and residencies available to faculty, from substantial monetary research to grants to small artists. Any awarded grant, fellowship or residency that engages in a rigorous peer review process and that can be evaluated as significant in terms of prestige and/or raising the individual’s visibility in the field should be considered as significant as a peer-reviewed journal article, as participation in an exhibition or as a festival award. Please see “Review and Distribution” below for details on how to provide evidence.

Review and Distribution

The following is a (non-exhaustive) list of the current opportunities available to faculty to have their work exhibited/published and reviewed. Suggestions about information to be submitted are included, but candidates should always provide as much detail as possible including when appropriate information to indicate selectivity (e.g. total applicants to those selected).



  • Article;
  • Publisher;
  • Publication;
  • Date of publication; and
  • Reviews, notices, and all other relevant material.

Authored Web Publication


  • Copy of article or web page;
  • Web address; and
  • Reviews, notices, and all other relevant material.

Books Authored


  • Contract from publisher (payment details not necessary);
  • Copy of manuscript or book (if already published); and
  • Reviews, notices, and all other relevant material.


Include the location of citation (book, article, web) in appropriate citation format.

Civic Engagement


  • Name of community group/constituency;
  • Description and documentation of activity; and
  • Evidence of efficacy (documentation of social impact: policy changes, events or actions as a result of the project, etc.).



  • Statement of which collection;
  • Description of collection; and
  • Reviews, notices, and all other relevant material.

Conferences and Symposia

Including keynote talk, formal presentation, moderator, panel participation, discussant, poster presentation, etc. Give details and provide substantiating documentation.



  • Copy of contract (payment details redacted).

Exhibitions/Installations (including competitive peer reviewed On-Line Exhibition)


  • Name and type of venue;
  • Solo or group exhibition;
  • Competitiveness;
  • Dates of exhibition; and
  • Catalogue, notices, and reviews.



  • Granting body;
  • Date;
  • Application process (How was the fellowship judged/awarded?); and
  • Competitiveness (number of applications vs. number awarded).



  • Festival;
  • Date;
  • Location;
  • Number of entries vs. number of entries accepted;
  • Category in which the work was entered; and
  • Awards, reviews, notices, and all other relevant material.



  • Granting body;
  • Date;
  • Application process (How was the grant judged?);
  • Competitiveness (number of applications vs. number awarded);
  • What it was for;
  • What percentage of it went to the applicant; and
  • Status of the granting organization (how old, how frequently gives grants, information on prestige/scope of influence).

Honors and Awards


  • Title of award;
  • Awarding body;
  • Date;
  • Certificate; and
  • Any other substantiating documentation.


Include a copy of license.


Include a copy of patent or patent pending paperwork.

Performances (such as sound works):


  • Venue;
  • Single or shared performance;
  • Dates; and
  • Include catalog, notices and reviews.



  • Title of residency and institution;
  • Length;
  • Application process; and
  • Competitive or bestowed.



  • Copy of review;
  • Date; and
  • Publication details.



  • Venue;
  • Date;
  • Location; and
  • If televised, give details of transmission.

Work cited


  • Publication;
  • Date;
  • Publisher (if applicable); and
  • Include the actual citation.