This does not constitute an employment contract. 

Department of Critical Race, Gender, and Culture Studies (CRGC)  

DEPARTMENT CRITERIA TO BE APPLIED IN PERSONNEL ACTIONS INVOLVING TENURE AND PROMOTION  

Approved by Office of the Provost, January 31, 2024  

INTRODUCTION  

1.  Promotion to Associate Professor  

   1. Research and Professional Development  

      1. Book Model  

      2. Article Model  

      3. Artist/Scholar Model  

      4. Translation Model  

      5. Further Guidelines for Research and Professional Development for Candidates following all Models.  

         1. Co-authored work  

         2. Non-peer reviewed scholarly work (books and articles)  

         3. Digitally Based projects and the Public Humanities  Translations  

   2. Teaching  

      1. Teaching Pedagogy/Philosophy for excellent teaching  

      2. Course instruction  

      3. Curriculum and Program Development  

      4. Student Advising and Mentoring  

      5. Community Engaged Pedagogy  

   3. Service  

      1. Professional Leadership and Conferences   

      2. Department, University, and Community Service  

      3. Contributions to Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion  

      4. Editing Journals  

2. Promotion to Full Professor  

   1. Scholarship and Professional Development  

      1. Book Model  

      2. Article Model  

      3. Artist/Scholar Model  

      4. Digital Projects and Public Humanities Model  

      5. Translation Model  

   2. Teaching  

   3. Service  

INTRODUCTION  

American University and the CRGC require creative scholarship, effective teaching, and service to the Department and University communities from a faculty member seeking tenure and/or promotion. The CRGC supports and values the university’s commitment to Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion and Inclusive Excellence. The Department follows the general standards, timetable, and procedures for reappointments, promotion, and tenure laid down in the Faculty Manual and supplemented by instructions from the Dean of the College, the Deputy Provost and/or the Committee on Faculty Actions. This document offers more specific guidance for faculty members in the CRGC applying for tenure or promotion, as well as for the Department's Reappointment, Promotions, and Tenure (RPT) Committee and Chair. The candidate is encouraged to consult the Chair on matters regarding progress and strategies for developing as a scholar, colleague, and teacher.  

  Promotion to Associate Professor  

1. RESEARCH & PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT  

   1. CRGC department members are tenured and promoted primarily under either an article-based publishing model or a book-based publishing model, but an artistic contributions or translations model is also acceptable.  A scholarly book or article will be considered to have met the expectation of acceptance for publication if the final manuscript has been accepted by the publisher with an editor’s letter confirming that fact before the RPT Committee makes its recommendation on tenure. Scholarship refers principally to the creation and dissemination of knowledge to audiences of scholars and interested parties among the general public. The criterion of “excellence” in scholarship is measured by work that is significant in advancing a field of inquiry or discipline. We define “significant” as entailing outside scholarly evaluation of the work's value and importance. Scholars may publish their work in a non-university or respected trade press that showcases deep research in a field equivalent with academic presses. In accordance with the faculty manual, applicants will be assessed on the aggregate productivity of their work since degree completion.   Outside evaluations of scholarship typically include external references, readers’ reports, and the quality of the place of publication. Evaluators should weigh the significance of the press or the journal of publication in their assessment. We recognize and commend scholarly and creative work which demonstrates commitment to Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion.  Faculty should explain how these principles may be expressed in their research agenda. 

A. Book Model 

Under the book model towards tenure, candidates are generally promoted on the basis of a single-authored book at a respected university press or its equivalent as stated above, as well as a few substantial articles and/or book chapters, and evidence of progress on future work. By “respected press,” we refer to book publishers widely known for rigorous peer review processes that publish field-relevant work by researchers in other research intensive, peer institutions. Generally speaking, such presses may be university presses, commercial academic publishers, or open-access outlets with highly rigorous review processes that are also among the top venues for publishing. As noted above, given the range of fields represented in the CRGC, presses will necessarily vary. The evidence should indicate that work on the second project is underway and ongoing and goes beyond the initial book project.  

Typically, candidates for tenure undergo a review at the end of their third year, and once again before submitting their file for tenure.  Under the book model we expect candidates to present evidence of research productivity at each review that may include some of the following:  

1. Evidence of progress on a book manuscript in the form of the submission of a book to a scholarly press and/or a book contract.  

2. Proposals, editorial reviews, book contracts, conference presentations, and/or manuscript  drafts.  

3. Invited lectures.  

4. Fellowships and new grant-supported research.  

5. Invitations to participate in scholarly research groups.  

6. Editing books.  

The book should draw significant conclusions on the basis of a unique data set presented in a single work. Drawing extensively on the data set destined for the book for articles is viewed favorably, yet article publications are not necessary at every review. The number of articles expected is relatively few. None may be expected, for example, in review periods in which the file contains other evidence of progress on the book or when a book manuscript is undergoing final revisions for submission.  It is important for the author to maintain the integrity of their book.   We encourage authors to avoid publishing more than a few articles drawn directly from their book.   

Although it is expected that article publications may be related to a book manuscript in progress, it is anticipated that candidates for promotion to tenure will complete work such as a conference paper, public talk, article, digital or public-facing project, research grant proposal, or similar efforts that take a topic in a new direction. Such work should demonstrate evidence of an ongoing future research agenda.    

B. Article Model  

Scholars in the CRGC may have a field of specialization in which they publish their findings in both article and book form, and tenure is awarded on the basis of significant journal publications, a monograph, or some combination thereof. In certain fields, the publication of edited volumes and collaboration among scholars is also highly valued.  It is also common for such scholars to receive tenure on the basis of articles and edited collections and to then subsequently publish a single-authored book. Co-authored articles are acceptable. In many fields, listing as the first author may carry the most weight, yet in other fields last author publications are weighted more heavily and may be a sign of effective mentorship. It is the faculty member's responsibility to provide information about the normative practices regarding the listing of authors.  

 Scholars may also write for academic and public audiences.  Under the article model we expect candidates to present evidence of research productivity at each review that may typically include:  

1. Evidence of progress in the form of the submission of journal articles and book chapters, and  conference presentations.  

2. Invited lectures.  

3. Fellowships and new grant-supported research.  

4. Invitations to participate in scholarly research groups.  

5. Where a blended article/book model is appropriate, evidence of progress on a book manuscript in the form of the submission of book proposals, editorial reviews, book contracts, conference  presentations, and/or manuscript drafts.  

6. Editing books.  

For promotion to tenure, we expect candidates to publish a number of articles, essays, and/or book chapters evidencing a substantive engagement and level of peer review equivalent to an academic or university press book. Articles published in open-access outlets with highly rigorous review processes that are among the top venues for publishing will also be considered acceptable. While we weigh quality over quantity when offering guidance to junior faculty, we generally recommend 7-8 articles, essays, or book chapters that clearly make a substantial contribution to the candidate’s areas of research and represent contributions relatively distinct from each other. At least 4-5 of these articles, essays, or book chapters should be peer-reviewed. Candidates pursuing the article model should plan to show evidence of ongoing plans and research for future publications.  Editing a book series or an anthology involving related intellectual and institutional contributions is also valued as evidence of continued scholarly engagement.  

C. Scholar/Artist Model  

Since the CRGC promotes an interdisciplinary research orientation that straddles the social sciences and humanities, some faculty may seek promotion or tenure as scholar-artists, meaning that they complement their published research with creative work. In their statements contextualizing their work, candidates should clarify how their creative output enhances their research, and how their research is enriched by their artistic practice. They should also provide appropriate materials available to external referees for evaluation. Referees must be experts in the candidate’s field.  

It is important to underline that while evidence of ongoing productivity is expected, a faculty member who seeks promotion as a scholar-artist within one review period is not expected to both publish a scholarly book and create a major artwork in each subsequent review. 

Since there is a wide breadth of creative output in which scholar-artists can engage, it is difficult to apply a single set of criteria that would allow the department faculty to weigh the individual’s artistic contributions. There are a broad set of criteria that the individual  

scholar-artist could use to make a case for why they merit promotion. In order to allow others to contextualize their hybrid productivity, in their personal statements, scholar-artists should detail some of the following:  

1. Scope, scale, size and/or duration and/or materials of the creative activity (e.g.,  large format photography, evening-long performances, animated short films, workshop  readings, published artistic volumes).  

2. Status of the venue and/or publisher and/or distributor and/or curator (e.g.,  museums, galleries, performing arts houses, music labels, online literary journals). It is  important to note that many celebrated creative activities had their beginnings in smaller  venues and/or in venues dedicated to promoting diversity.  

3. Proportion of new and old work exhibited/performed/published.  

4. Technical complexity or technique involved in the production of research (for  example, serving as both musical performer and sound engineer, authoring a piece of  software). These may be presented for evaluation separately if appropriate.  

5. Whether the creative output of the scholar-artist is solely their work, or if it is  collaborative, and a statement explaining their contribution to the group and  contextualizing why the artistic product is enhanced by its collaborative origins.  

In order to assess the merit of each individual’s scholarly-artistic productivity, their  statement should also clarify the:  

1. Local, national, and/or international impact of their creative work (with specific  mention of reviews of their work, or other relevant documentation of its importance).  

2. Local, national and/or international standing of collaborators, if any.  

3. Innovative qualities of the artistic product vis-a-vis the established traditions that each product comes from and engages with.  

4. Addendums of artistic products to their file (including a table of contents) containing items such as: CDs, DVDs, hyperlinks to online artistic products, books of poetry, prose, sonic, photographic, or video documentation, and copies of published or unpublished reviews of that scholar-artist’s creations.  

 Regarding reviews of the scholar-artist’s production, it is important to note that published reviews of all forms of artwork have diminished due in part to the preponderance of digital publication today. The absence of a professional publisher should not necessarily negatively impact evaluation. Rather, it should place heightened responsibility on the artist to make their work visible to others, and to include and contextualize evidence of the impact that their creative output has made.  

 The concept of venue is used here in a very broad sense, encompassing physical performance spaces (e.g., concert hall, theater, gallery), printed and digital media (e.g., journal, publisher, record label), presenting bodies (arts or other nonprofit organization, broadcasting agency, foundation), and other forms of publication, distribution, and dissemination. Faculty members must clearly articulate the importance and prestige of the venues for their work and provide documentation and supportive materials to help evaluators assess the significance of each venue.  

Lastly, for creative artists in the department, academic writing (articles, books) and curatorial work is not necessary for advancement, but, when available, may be included in files and should be evaluated as are other academic publications and exhibitions.  

Faculty members at all levels are expected to demonstrate continued substantive development, growth, and increasing visibility in their scholarly work. The whole of any candidate’s portfolio should demonstrate a clear and discernible forward trajectory of ongoing work that speaks to their contributions and stature within the discipline. Just as traditional scholarly achievements are supported by substantial peer-reviewed publications and presentations, creative and professional work must be supported by a record of output that can be evaluated.  

D. Further Guidelines for Research and Professional Development for Candidates following all Models.    

The following kinds of work may be used by candidates following all models as evidence of progress toward tenure.  

1. Co-authored Work  

Opportunities for co-authored publications in the CRGC are encouraged as an extension of  the interdisciplinary, comparative, and relational nature of the fields which our department encompasses. The candidate should make clear their contribution to the overall work.  

The CRGC highly values collaboration. In some cases, co-authorship goes beyond the cooperative production of a particular publication. In such cases, where the level of co-authorship is pervasive at every level of the conception, research, and writing, the CRGC will recommend that work on the project represents 100% effort from each author. Each member’s contribution is valued in full, not as producing a portion of the resulting piece.   

ii. Non-peer reviewed scholarly work (books and articles)  

Articles must be substantial examples of research and represent the culmination of significant intellectual labor. These contributions often represent vital research contributions which we believe are underappreciated and “under-counted” when the conventional peer-review article is the exclusive benchmark. The CRGC values original, cutting edge and interdisciplinary work that may appear in publications beyond mainstream journals and publications, although such work cannot be the sole basis for tenure. Content and substantial research, reach and impact, should be taken into consideration regardless of the format of scholarly review. In addition, the stature of editors and standing in the field should be taken into consideration. Productivity in this venue is recognized as important and valued intellectual labor that shows evidence of their expertise in their field and discipline.  

iii. Digitally Based projects and the Public Humanities  

The CRGC highly values public-facing scholarship that engages with popular and academic audiences.  Although candidates cannot achieve tenure based solely on their work in digitally based projects and/or the public humanities, their productivity in this field is recognized as important and valued intellectual labor that shows evidence of their expertise in their field and discipline. In an application file for tenure, work in the Public Humanities and Digitally based projects may be cited as evidence of a new scholarly direction that the candidate intends to develop for promotion to full professor. Criteria for evaluating such projects is described in greater depth in Section II.  

iv. Translation  

1. Scholars taking the book, or article, or artistic/scholar model may also produce translation as part of their overall corpus of original work.  The CRGC recognizes that the translation of a work of literature, scholarship, or any major set of documents is essential to the growth of our global intellectual community, public humanities, and scholarly fields; we highly value such contributions among our faculty. Candidates must explain in their narrative the significance of their work(s) in translation in the context of their scholarly field. The candidate must document the creative, critical, and/or scholarly work involved in the project. The candidate will prepare a statement providing background information about the translated author(s) and the work which has been translated. The candidate should address the following considerations, among others: the importance of the source of the text, differences in intended audience, theoretical considerations, and special challenges posed by the text(s). Translation work should be evaluated by at least 1 reviewer with a mastery of both the source language and the target language. Where feasible, reviewers will also specialize in the academic field to which the translated text belongs.   

                                           TEACHING  

1. Teaching Pedagogy/Philosophy for excellent teaching  

Evaluations of teaching in the CRGC follow the guidelines for the Teaching Portfolio in the Committee for Faculty Action (CFA) checklist, which can be found at: https://www.american.edu/provost/academicaffairs/upload/au-teaching-portfolio-tenure_promotions2.pdf.  

When writing their narrative, CRGC faculty should also consider (1) course instruction, (2) curriculum and program development, (3) student advising and mentoring and, where appropriate, (4) community engaged pedagogy.  Descriptions of these elements are described below.     

2. Course instruction  

Course instruction includes classroom or online instruction; the organization and facilitation of seminars and workshops that are related to curriculum needs; independent instruction involving one or more students; and management of community engaged learning. The Department recognizes the difficulty of teaching CRGC courses that challenge students’ paradigms and assumptions about race, gender, and class.  

3. Curriculum and program development  

Examples include the development and teaching of new courses, publication of textbooks or other teaching materials, and development of professional training programs. Funded training grants and research grants that include support for students are valued contributions in this area.  

4. Student advising and mentoring  

Activities in this area may include general student advising and mentoring; chairing and serving on undergraduate and graduate student committees; and including students in research and as co-authors in scholarly work. At the undergraduate level, indicators of quality include retention of all students; intensive informal advising; recruiting students to major/minor in CRGC programs; advising student groups/organizations; and mentoring all students who apply to and/or are accepted to graduate/professional schools. At the graduate level, indicators of quality include professional awards and publication of dissertations chaired, and placement of students.  

5.  Community Engaged Pedagogy  

Community engagement develops, transfers, and transforms knowledge by drawing on both  academic and community knowledge, and builds the capacity of both students and community  members. The Department recognizes that these endeavors are time intensive and, at times,  untraditional in their structure.  

3. SERVICE   

1. Professional Leadership and Conferences   

The CRGC is an interdisciplinary field of social, cultural, and political inquiry that places tremendous value on faculty professional leadership and participation in their field and related disciplines. We understand professional leadership to include membership and engagement within professional associations, community-based organizations, academic and non-academic institutes, and centers. Examples of professional leadership typically include conference presentations, committee work within the discipline’s professional organization, workshops, scholar-in-residence positions, fellowships, grants, community, media, and other speaking engagements that demonstrate the expertise of our faculty at local, regional, national, and international levels. Series editor roles, task force membership, leadership positions in national professional organizations, fellowship or grant referees, and peer reviews of non-AU faculty files are all acceptable aspects of professional leadership in the department. While we do not set a specific quantitative standard for participation in leadership activities both in and outside of academia, we recognize the tremendous labor CRGC faculty expend to advance new knowledge and solutions to some of society’s most pressing issues.   

2. Department, University, and Community Service  

The CRGC believes that the role of service at both the university and community level is essential for professional development, achievement, and growth. While we do not set a minimum or quantitative number of committees or other professional service activities, the service of those seeking tenure should demonstrate meaningful and sustained commitment to the department as well as the university, and/or community. In addition to the service performed as part of their departmental responsibilities, CRGC faculty applying for tenure are encouraged to articulate the various forms of service that they perform in the name of improving society and our university mission. We commend faculty who work with external community-based organizations. Working with members of the AU community, the broader DMV and Washington DC community as well as those in the United States and globally are central to the mission and founding of the discipline of the CRGC.   

We commend faculty who serve on more than one university committee and/or more than two departmental committees. University service of an exceptional nature should merit additional consideration for tenure and promotion.  

3. Contributions to Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion  

Although there may often be a perception that CRGC scholars either “only” or “automatically” do diversity work this is not the way our fields operate.  Contributions to diversity, equity, and inclusion require thoughtful, intentional, and sustained engagement.  The CRGC is dedicated to the university’s mission of enhancing the experiences of all students. . Contributions to diversity, equity, and inclusion are deemed to be significant contributions to the department, the university, and the DMV community.  

While we do not expect every faculty member to contribute in the same ways, we note that membership and/or leadership in professional associations, community boards, university service committees, department curriculum committees as well as through media and other public contributions require vast knowledge, time, expertise, and commitment. Faculty contributions to diversity, equity, and inclusion may include:   

1. public lectures  

2. invited talks   

3. directing a center  

4. podcasts   

5. appearing on local and national news  

6. event organizing  

7. advising undergraduate and graduate students  

Mentoring students of all backgrounds is also a crucial aspect of the ways that our faculty demonstrate their commitment to diversity work.  

4. Editing Journals  

The departmental standard for service work includes editing journals. Editing requires intense intellectual work that results in significant impacts in relevant fields of study. Journal editors enhance their institution’s national and international reputation. The contributions of editorial work are evaluated on the basis of its content and qualitative contributions to intellectual discussions; the stature of publication venue; reviews and awards; and its inspiration of subsequent publications, conferences, and panels.   

II. Promotion to Full Professor  

American University and the CRGC require effective teaching, creative scholarship, and dedicated service to the Department and University communities from a faculty member seeking promotion to Full Professor. The Department follows the general standards, timetable, and procedures for promotion laid down in the Faculty Manual and supplemented by instructions from the Dean of the College, the Deputy Provost and/or the Committee on Faculty Actions.   

 Promotion to the rank of Full Professor is primarily a matter of the faculty member's level of scholarly and/or creative achievement after promotion to tenure as well as professional service, high-quality teaching, active engagement with students in and outside the classroom, and professional recognition. Faculty seeking appointment to full professor may follow any of the available paths and are not bound by the path they pursued to gain tenure and appointment to Associate Professor. Scholarly work that falls under categories described in I. 1.D (“Further Guidelines for Research and Professional Development for Candidates Following all Models”) should also contribute to a candidate’s file for promotion to full professor.    

1. Scholarship and Professional Development  

1. Book Model  

For promotion from associate to full professor we expect candidates to follow the guidelines in the path for the book model described in Section I 1 A. Those who follow a book model should publish a second book that creates and disseminates significant knowledge to audiences of scholars and interested parties among the general public. The criterion of “excellence” in scholarship is measured by work that is significant in advancing a field of inquiry or discipline.    

2. Article Model  

As a guide for associate professors moving to full, we recommend a further seven to eight   articles, essays, or book chapters. These numerical suggestions do not foreclose the possibility that a candidate might publish fewer, but that the work would then have greater impact on the field. Additional publications, such as a few more short articles, book reviews, and other forms of research productivity outside of the standard article format demonstrate vigorous engagement in related areas of academic interest. We expect a significant number of these articles, but not all of them, will draw from the same data set.   

3. Artist/Scholar Model  

Those who follow the artist/scholar model should produce a substantial body of work and should show evidence of continuing excellence in their artistic work. A faculty member’s portfolio may be directed towards scholarly publication, professional work, creative work, artistic performance, or a combination of these. A clear agenda appropriate to the individual’s discipline is articulated and a discernible forward trajectory of ongoing work should be maintained. For some disciplines and individuals, a hybrid combination of scholarly, professional, and creative activities is not only fitting but also encouraged.  

4. Digitally Based Research and the Public Humanities Model  

Scholars in the CRGC may turn to digital research methods and publications, as well as the public humanities, to continue their research and pursue a path to full professor.  Those who follow the digital and public humanities model toward appointment for full professor should produce a substantial body of work subsequent to their initial promotion to associate professor and should show evidence of continuing excellence. A faculty member’s portfolio may be directed towards scholarly publications, professional work, digital work, public facing work, or a combination of these. A clear agenda appropriate to the individual’s discipline must be articulated and a discernible forward trajectory of ongoing work should be maintained. For some disciplines and individuals, a hybrid combination of scholarly, professional, and creative activities is not only fitting but also encouraged.   

Digital humanities research can take the form of a critical curation of thematic research collections or digital archives. The production of digital research platforms is valued as a form of scholarship that in turn, through interaction with other platform users, generates further scholarship. The building of software promoting citizen scholars' activities is viewed as a significant contribution to humanistic research. Particularly in the case of historically based work, digital research platforms are prized for providing new means of connecting the work of other scholars with the ways that broader publics remember and engage with the field. By their very nature digital scholarship projects do not necessarily come to a discrete conclusion since they are often expanded upon and added to by the original author and subsequent users.  Digital projects are often iterative, requiring more than one review, or review over several cycles, to capture their growth and development. In practice such projects challenge the distinction between publications and works in progress. However digital projects are conceived and executed, outside evaluators should assess their contributions to the field or discipline.  Care must be taken to understand the specificity of digital forms.  

Work in the public humanities may take a digital form but does not need to. According to the MLA, public humanities scholarship is expansive in nature and typically includes, but is not limited to, “print and digital forms of individual and collective scholarship published in venues that reach broad audiences, such as op-eds; community events, such as speaker series or community reading events; analog projects, like exhibits in public spaces, interpretive material, and cultural heritage sites; and digital projects like podcasts, websites, or apps—and some projects may appear in more than one of these iterations.”  

Public humanities scholarship may also include the curation of museum exhibits, which can be evaluated in terms of the extent and quality of the research behind the exhibit; the quality of the exhibit catalogue; the importance of exhibition venues; the volume of exhibition visitors; and any subsequent research that an exhibit generates.   

The CRGC recognizes that work in the public humanities often blurs the traditional boundaries between research, teaching, and service. Such work is often collaborative, involving the efforts of multiple professionals. Moreover, the work of public humanities engages members of the public itself—sometimes as an audience, but often as active collaborators in the creation of knowledge. The CRGC acknowledges that public humanities scholarship often engages with communities as sites of knowledge, cultural production, and spaces whose meanings derive from the lived experiences of the inhabitants as they engage in acts of placemaking.  Any work in the Public Humanities that collaborates with community partners must proceed from an awareness of the necessity of ethical responsibility to the community.  

The CRGC values forms of creative scholarship in the public humanities that make significant contributions to what the American Historical Association describes as “the discovery, exchange, interpretation, and presentation of information . . .”  Such work might include the editing of documentary collections, conducting oral history projects, producing work on film and video, curating museum exhibitions, preparing major reports to government or historical agencies, winning grant awards, delivering extensive expert testimony, creating major websites, directing community-based public history projects, and other similar public-facing work.  

Peer review of digital and public humanities scholarship may take the form of letters solicited from experts in the field but also citations and discussions in scholarly venues; grants received from foundations and other sources of funding; and public presentations of the project at conferences and symposia. The impact of digital and public humanities research can be measured in terms of grants; the number of viewers or contributors to a site and the quality of the contributions; print and online citations (blogs, social media, links, and trackbacks); use or adoption of the project by other scholars and institutions; conferences and symposia featuring the project; and use in public and community outreach (such as museum exhibitions, impact on public policy, adoption in curricula, and so one); and the evaluation of scholarly peers.  

 Additional principles used to evaluate digital and public humanities projects may include the following guiding questions developed by the MLA. These key questions help both the candidate and the department to evaluate public humanities scholarship:  

   1. The scope and impact of the project.  (How substantial is the work undertaken? What are its effects in the geographic and intellectual communities in which it participates? How does it change what we know or what we do?).   

2. The form and dissemination of the project (How is the project shared with its audience? How is its form—print, digital, participatory, or otherwise—adapted to the specific needs of its public?).   

3. The extent of existing deliverables and, where relevant, the future trajectory of the project (How has the project—if, like many digital or oral projects, it is a work perennially in progress—achieved some portions of its aims to date? How does it lay the groundwork for future development? How will such future development be evaluated?); and   

4. The nature and extent of collaboration where applicable (How, for projects that involve collaboration among scholars or with a wider community, is collaboration structured? How are ethical relationships with the community or collaborators secured and assured?).   

The CRGC recognizes, in the words of the MLA, that “characteristics valued in peer-reviewed scholarly books and journal articles also appear in public-facing projects: depth of engagement with previous scholarship, scope of contribution to major lines of inquiry in the field, impact on the field and on the broader community, and inventiveness and clarity in communication.”    

Faculty wishing to have digitally based and/or public humanities projects recognized for promotion to full professor should carefully document (through the submission of a portfolio) the scholarly process involved, taking care to demonstrate the nature and scope of the project, its historical significance, its impact on its audiences, and, importantly, the research and specific contributions made by the individual faculty member. The CRGC acknowledges, as the MLA states, that “public humanities scholarship often challenges the power of institutions and should be valued for the challenges it presents.”    

The CRGC intends to use the latest criterion for evaluating the Digital and Public Humanities articulated by the leading professional organizations, such as the MLA, OAH, the NCPH, and the AHA.  As with traditional scholarship, the work’s value is indicated by the degree to which professional peers value it as well as community members. Faculty are encouraged to submit evidence of review and assessment from a variety of external sources.  

2. Teaching  

For promotion from Associate to Full professor we expect candidates to follow Dean of Faculty website guidance on teaching portfolios and continue to meet the expectations at or above the department level as outlined above in section I. 2 on “Teaching.”  

3. Service  

The candidate for full professor must show evidence of significant service beyond that performed for promotion to Associate professor at all levels--department, university, the broader profession, and/or the community. Such service typically includes work that demonstrates leadership at the department and university level and can include national and international service in a field. Working as a program director in the CRGC is valued as service to the university as well as the department.  

The department greatly values senior professors’ leadership and research contributions to field-building intellectual work which can include a range of activities such as facilitating and co-authoring publications with junior scholars, spearheading new intellectual formations, significant editorial work including journals, edited collections and university press book series, securing funding for expansive research projects, and contributing to the university’s mission of diversity, equity, and inclusion. Service work is further described in section I. 3 under “Service.”