Faculty Development Plan
Visual Arts
2004
Faculty Self Assessment: Strengths
Areas of Improvement:
Professional Goals & Interests Aligned With Area Goals
The Designer as Writer
Graphic Design History
Corporate Identity, branding & professional practices
Professional Evaluation
Evaluation of graphic design faculty is typically based on several criteria. The National Association of Schools of Art and Design (NASAD), the accrediting body for schools or art and design, provides the following information regarding peer review for graphic design.
Excerpt from a briefing paper: SELECTING & SUPPORTING GRAPHIC DESIGN FACULTY
CRITERIA FOR EVALUATION FACULTY RESEARCH, PROFESSIONAL, AND CREATIVE ACTIVITY
in evaluating the quality of faculty responsible for graphic design instruction, reviewers consider vitae con-taining descriptions of ongoing research, professional accomplishments, and creative activity. Until recently, the expectations for full-time, tenure track graphic design faculty have been limited to teaching, service, and sustained professional practice based on client commission. Evaluation on these terms remains valid. However, other possibilities are evident.
On occasion, faculty engage in the creation and production of design work that might more appropriately be classified as fine art, thus leaving the usual parameters of their primary discipline when the quantity or quality of client-initiated projects is not creatively satisfying. Under these conditions, graphic design faculty's creative studio accomplishments are judged against standards that include professional competitions, the number and stature of commissioned works for clients, and exhibition of work. Because design is rarely cre-ated for or shown in gallery settings, the traditional rubrics of invitational and one-person shows cannot be applied generally to all design faculty. Further, entry and hanging fees for design competitions and exhibitions can be hundreds of dollars for each piece, raising questions about the efficacy of broad-based submission to garner a few résumé entries.
With the development of graduate programs in graphic design, scholarship continues to grow and improve. What does this mean for faculty evaluation? In the past, the academic scholarship of design faculty was generally confined to technical and historical investigations within the limits of traditional design practice. The first comprehensive survey of graphic design history was not published until the 1980s and design periodicals usually restricted their content to captioned pictures of recent professional work, not scholarly dis-course. While this is changing, there are still only two refereed design journals in the United States and their content addresses an array of design disciplines, reducing the odds of publication of graphic design writing and challenging graphic design faculty with the difficult task of securing publication opportunities outside their discipline.
Within the last decade, however, many design faculty have entered theoretical and polemic discourse that has its roots in disciplines outside design and the fine arts. This work results from ambitious reading and research that positions design ideas in contexts other than practice and personal expression. It seeks to dis-cover and articulate the theoretical underpinnings of design as contributions to the body of knowledge about the discipline as well as the practice. Many efforts are self published or confined to a small but growing num-ber of publications devoted to such interests. Because the individuals engaged in this research are few and represent a new model for design faculty, internal and external reviewers may have limited experience evaluat-ing the content and quality of their scholarship. The hybrid nature of their work (often a combination of aca-demic scholarship, criticism, and making) falls outside the more well-defined research models of art historian or studio artist. The number of national and international opportunities for peer review are few The growth of graphic design scholarship and its inclusion as a goal of graduate programs in graphic design will create new priorities that affect faculty evaluation, particularly as specific institutions and graphic design programs adjust their missions and goals.
Each institution determines criteria for faculty evaluation. In the field of graphic design these criteria should reflect: 1) the roles of various faculty positions in fulfilling the published goals and objectives of the graphic design program; 2) the nature, meaning, patterns, and systems of evaluating professional work, schol-arly and creative output, and research in graphic design; and 3) the specific responsibilities of individual fac-ulty members and their accomplishments since leaving graduate school."
Resources
In order to allow sufficient time to conduct scholarly research and complete teaching and citizenship expectations, I propose teaching the following academic load:
Fall: 3 classes Winter: 2 classes Spring: 1 class
Since the tools of graphic design are primarily specialized computer systems and applications that fall out-side the standard University issue, on occasion, arrangements will need to be made to provide high-end computing, printing, proofing and rendering equipment. An industry standard computer set-up system for a graphic designer would include the following items:
Hardware:
G5 Macintosh System with dual processor. 21 inch display monitor
Flatbed Scanner
Epson printer capable of 12 x 18 color prints DVD-CD Burner
Portable drive such as a Flash drive, or I pod
Software:
Adobe Creative Suite:
including Illustrator, Photoshop, Indesign Adobe Type Manager Adobe After Effects
Macromedia MX
Macromedia Dreamweaver