These guidelines supplement the collegiate criteria for scholarly and artistic engagement as set forth in Faculty Handbook Section 2.4.2. They indicate how those standards apply to the distinctive intellectual work produced by IPHS faculty.
Where relevant, these guidelines draw on the Modern Language Association’s Guidelines for Evaluating Digital Scholarship (Committee on Information Technology, 2024) and Guidelines for Evaluating Publicly Engaged Humanities Scholarship in Language and Literature Programs (Ad Hoc Committee on Valuing the Public Humanities, 2022), which articulate national disciplinary norms for evaluating digital, computational, and public-facing humanistic work. As the field continues to evolve, scholarly guidelines should continue to be grounded in the tenets held by professional organizations such as the MLA.
Forms of Intellectual and Creative Contribution
IPHS faculty produce intellectual work in varied forms, and our evaluation criteria recognize this diversity. Traditional scholarship, including monographs, edited collections, peer-reviewed journal articles, and book chapters, remains a central form of contribution.
IPHS recognizes that peer-reviewed cross-boundary scholarly work is of equal standing with work within traditional disciplinary boundaries, consistent with the MLA Guidelines for Evaluating Digital Scholarship (2024) recommendation that institutions recognize innovative cross-boundary intellectual work.
In humanistic fields, a small number of well-placed articles, books, edited collections, or book chapters constitutes a genuine scholarly accomplishment; citation counts are not a meaningful metric in humanities and should not be used as a primary indicator of significance.
In AI and computational fields, peer-reviewed papers accepted at top international conference venues constitute significant completed scholarly work, with venue prestige interpreted relative to current norms in the candidate’s subfield. ArXiv preprints are distinct from peer-reviewed conference papers and are evaluated separately.
Digital humanities scholarship, including digital archives, databases, digital editions, interactive research platforms, and mapping or geospatial projects, is evaluated as scholarly contribution consistent with the MLA Guidelines for Evaluating Digital Scholarship (2024), which establish that such work warrants credit on the same terms as traditional scholarship.
Public scholarship and personal public humanities, including nationally or internationally distributed intellectual work addressed to general or cross-disciplinary audiences (recorded lecture series, podcasts, and public-facing writing in venues with editorial oversight), are evaluated on reach, editorial oversight, and intellectual substance rather than format. The MLA’s 2022 Guidelines for Evaluating Publicly Engaged Humanities Scholarship explicitly recognize these forms and note that the scope and impact of such work “may be greater than is typically measured by the prestige of the venue.”
Translation and critical editions, policy reports and expert advising for governmental or international bodies, and collaborative student-engaged research are all recognized forms of scholarly contribution.
Appointments to national or international consortia, working groups, or governance bodies recognizing scholarly expertise (governmental, intergovernmental, industry standards, or major disciplinary) constitute significant external recognition of scholarly standing.
Editorial work, peer reviewing for major venues, and pedagogical scholarship validated through peer review and external recognition (including curricular models published in scholarly venues and adopted beyond the home institution) are recognized scholarly contributions, consistent with the precedent established in other Kenyon departments for which pedagogical research is a recognized subdiscipline.
These categories are not mutually exclusive, and the goal of evaluation is to assess the whole of a candidate’s intellectual contribution across whatever combination of forms their work takes.
Pre-Tenure Scholarly and Artistic Engagement
Consistent with the Faculty Handbook Section 2.4.2 standard of “evidence of ongoing engagement,” pre-tenure expectations do not require a completed major work. The relevant question at this stage is whether the candidate is developing a coherent intellectual trajectory across any of the forms of contribution recognized above.
Tenure: Scholarly and Artistic Engagement
The candidate must demonstrate a coherent, sustained intellectual agenda with completed, publicly available work that has achieved national or international visibility. The form this work takes varies by field, with examples including:
In humanistic fields, peer-reviewed articles, books, edited collections, or book chapters completed or under contract.
In AI and computational fields, peer-reviewed articles, books, and conference papers accepted at top peer-reviewed venues.
In digital humanities, peer-reviewed articles, books, and completed and publicly accessible projects with evidence of scholarly use.
Public scholarship is also valued. Nationally or internationally distributed work with documented reach constitutes a recognized contribution.
Across all forms, the tenure case must demonstrate completed work recognized by relevant communities beyond Kenyon, evidence of a continuing agenda, and national or international visibility appropriate to the candidate’s field.
Promotion to Full Professor: Scholarly and Artistic Engagement
Consistent with Faculty Handbook Section 2.4.9, the candidate must demonstrate excellence through continued intellectual productivity and growing impact since tenure. A strong case will include a major completed work or body of work since tenure: a book, a sustained body of peer-reviewed publications, a significant funded research program, a major digital or computational project, or a body of public scholarship with national or international reach.
Promotion to full also warrants assessment of broader indicators of scholarly influence. These include: competitive external grants; appointments to national or international scholarly, policy, or standards bodies; fellowships and awards; invitations to keynote or advise at the national or international level; and reach and impact appropriate to the form of the work, interpreted in light of current norms in the candidate’s subfield. For digital, computational, and public scholarship, the MLA’s 2022 guidelines explicitly note that scope and impact “may be greater than is typically measured by the prestige of the venue.” A record demonstrating influence across multiple categories is a mark of distinction in an interdisciplinary program like IPHS.
Revised May 2026