Theatre Design & Technology - Fall 1987 - 72

areas of the academic community, the faculty in theatrical
design and technology are entitled to a knowledgable evaluation of their professional activity. These professors should be
experienced in attending theatre and should be expected to
acquaint themselves with the theatrical production standards
of comparable institutions. Because of the ephemeral nature of
theatrical productions, all related creative activities are best
evaluated after attendance at performances. Those faculty
members and administrators involved with the evaluation of
the theatre faculty have a responsibility to attend departmental
performances regularly.
To obtain off-campus evaluation, we recommend the use of
adjudication by professional specialists in the field or through
professional organizations. The department may also routinely
invite evaluation by colleagues from other institutions. Whenever possible, these evaluations should be obtained in response
to viewing a production, since this provides the most valid
experience of the artist's works.
Evaluating teaching/work loads and the issues related to
them may be especially sensitive at the departmentalleveI, in
that a change in the production work load of a designer or
technologist may affect the level of support provided to directors for their productions. This is especially true where designers and technologists are responsible for multiple productions during the academic year while each director is typically
involved in only one or two. These issues have implications
beyond the department. Thus it may be advisable to seek assistance in negotiating appropriate loads from administrators,
faculty committees overseeing personnel and compensation
practices, or from collective bargaining representatives.
Finally, there should be a clear understanding shared among
the theatre faculty and the institutional administrators regarding the purpose or mission of the institution and the role of
theatrical production in fulfilling that mission. In the absence
of such shared vision any evaluation will lack meaning.
I: ISSUES IN EVALUATION
EVALUATION OF TEACHING
Most institutions have developed mechanisms for evaluating
faculty effectiveness in the classroom. Often collegial classroom observations are a part of the process. Also common is an
examination of materials such as course syllabi and handouts.
Ideally the evaluations are conducted by faculty members in
allied fields, who have sufficient knowledge of the candidate's
subject to recognize excellence or deficiencies.
For candidates in the areas of theatrical design and technology, the subject knowledge and qualifications of the evaluators
are critical. Even departmental colleagues in specialties such as
theatre history, dramaturgy, or directing may lack sufficient
technical knowledge to judge fairly the conduct of a course in
stage lighting technology, properties fabrication, flat pattern
drafting, or rendering techniques. It is the responsibility of
institutions, typically through the departmental chairperson,
to secure evaluations by persons well-qualified by their knowledge of the candidate's subject.
In some cases, it may be helpful to examine the achievements
of program graduates. If students are consistently finding and
keeping employment in the fields of theatrical design and technology with respected producing organizations and/or they are
consistently succeeding in reputable graduate programs, good
teaching in these fields is probably occurring.
CREATIVE ACTIVITY/RESEARCH/SCHOLARSHIP
As observed earlier, evidence of creative activity/research/
cholarship i ideally required by institutions in order to ensure
that professors continue to contribute actively to their areas of
specialization and to maintain and develop their professional
competence. Participation in theatrical productions is the nor-

TD&T SUPPLEMENT

FALL 1987

mal mode of professional endeavor for theatrical designers and
technologists. Significant amounts of research are often required in the processes of design and production; the results of
this research and the creative processes are presented in the
form of visual elements of the production. The visual statements created for public presentation through production are
the valid form of public communication for theatrical artists.
We also note that a jurying procedure is inherent in the process
of theatrical production, as designs are submitted to the director for approval, technical plans are approved by designers, and
so forth.
The independent, individual research and creative activity
required in producing theatrical designs, renderings, models,
technical drawings, or plans are distinct. These parts of the
production activity are those which should be equated to research/scholarship. Where a reduction in teaching load is given
for supervising students in production activities and studios,
credit for creative activity should still be given for the independent, individual research and creation of renderings, technical
drawings, designs for scenic machines, etc. These creative activities occur outside the supervisory hours in the studio.
Though the practices of theatrical design, technical direction, and costuming quite routinely demand a high degree of
creativity, the nature of this creative activity is typically specifically related to the needs of an individual production. There
are comparatively few vehicles to publish materials on these
activities and publication should not be expected. However,
those designers and technologists who have been able to publish original work have done something quite extraordinary in
their fields and worthy of special consideration.
TEACHI G/WORK LOADS AND REQUIRED CREATIVE
ACTIVITY
Issues concerning teaching/work loads and compensation have
a direct bearing on promotion and tenure evaluation. Excessive
pressures of time and finance on faculty members can seriously
impair professional creative activity and thus lessen the probability of attaining tenure or promotion. Of even greater concern
to educators is the poor teaching which is the inevitable result
of chronic fatigue and overwork. These factors become critical
when the production designers and technologists are responsible for multiple productions each semester or year, while other
theatre faculty members participate in only one or two.
We endorse the following statement from the 1985-1986
Handbook (p. 32) of the ational Association of Schools of
Theatre, regarding teaching and studio work loads:
A teaching load not exceeding 15- 18 scheduled contact
hours each week is recommended for studio teachers on a
fuIl-time appointment. Teachers of lecture courses on a
full-time appointment should have teaching loads not exceeding nine to twelve hours. Teaching loads of those having administrative and consultative duties should be appropriately reduced. The assignment and scheduling of
faculty responsibilities should acknowledge that teachers
need ample time for their own creative and scholarly work.
At many institutions teaching evaluations weigh very heavily in promotion and tenure reviews. Thi factor may far outweigh the value of creative activity/research/scholarship. Even
institutions which place primary emphasis on creative activity/research/scholarship commonly establish minimum
standards for teaching. If required creative activities are not
adequately compensated through release from other duties, the
theatrical designer or technologist may have little time or energy for course preparation, classroom teaching, or advising. In
this context, despite high ability, hard work and long hour, the
candidate earns poor teaching reviews and may be denied promotion or tenure on this basis.
It is also common for institutions to place major emphasis in

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of Theatre Design & Technology - Fall 1987