RUL 05.67.02 – Department of Agricultural and Extension Education Reappointment, Promotion and Tenure Standards and Procedures

Authority: Executive Vice Chancellor and Provost

History: First Issued: January 30, 1998. Last Revised: October 22, 2004.

Related Policies: 
NCSU POL05.20.01 – Appointment, Reappointment, Promotion and Permanent Tenure
NCSU RUL05.67.22 – College of Agriculture and Life Sciences Reappointment, Promotion and Tenure Standards and Procedures
NCSU REG05.20.27 – Statement of Faculty Responsibilities 
Glassick Standards

Additional References:
Office of the Provost RPT Website

Contact Info: Department Head, Agricultural and Extension Education (919-515-2707)

1. Introduction

1.1. The University and the Department seek to appoint and retain as members of the faculty those individuals having the highest qualifications. Appointments are made at the academic ranks of instructor, assistant professor, associate professor, and professor. It is university policy that each department, through its senior faculty and department head, establish a rule describing the standards and procedures for reappointment, promotion and tenure. This rule is supplemental to and consistent with University Academic Tenure Policy NCSU POL05.20.01 – Appointment, Reappointment, Promotion and Permanent Tenure.

The Department of Agricultural and Extension Education develops, supports, and leads professionals in agricultural and extension education. The primary role for agricultural and extension educators is the communication of agricultural information to a variety of clientele groups. This communication may occur in public school (formal) education settings or in non-formal settings such as in Cooperative Extension or the agricultural industry.

2. Areas of Faculty Responsibility

Faculty in the Department of Agricultural and Extension Education may have teaching and/or extension responsibilities. The faculty in the department recognize their responsibility in the areas of teaching and mentoring students, discovery of knowledge, extension and engagement with constituencies outside the university, and service to the university and to the profession of agricultural and extension education. Standards for excellence in these areas are described in Section III of this rule.

Some faculty in the department have administrative responsibilities. These faculty members are responsible for providing leadership for evaluation of Cooperative Extension programs and activities, for leading the reporting and accountability system for Cooperative Extension, and for providing leadership, professional development, and technical support for secondary agriculture teachers in North Carolina. These faculty often have a small percentage of their assignment in teaching or research, but their primary responsibilities are in extension and engagement administration.

The professional expectations for an individual faculty member are determined by the position description, which is typically included in the letter of offer and subsequently in the Statement of Faculty Responsibility. Modifications to this description will be negotiated, documented and incorporated in the Statement of Faculty Responsibility.

3. General Standards

3.1. Standards for Quality Teaching and Advising

Quality teaching and advising are of paramount importance in the department because they facilitate the department’s primary mission of preparing students for productive and responsible positions in society. Effective teaching and advising are essential to enabling students to achieve their life goals. Evidence of quality teaching and advising may include the following:

3.1.1. Student evaluations of teaching should be consistently positive on the Faculty Teaching Evaluation Report.

3.1.2. Positive student evaluations of advising.

3.1.3. Positive reports of peer reviews of teaching.

3.1.4. Published articles that have direct implications for improving college teaching that appear in professional journals.

3.1.5. Presentations and participation at professional conferences.

3.1.6. Development of innovative and/or creative instructional materials.

3.1.7. Received awards or honors for quality teaching.

3.2. Standards for Quality Research

Quality research is a scholarly activity that contributes to the knowledge base and improved understanding in a recognized area of inquiry. Evidence of quality research may include the following:

3.2.1. Writing and presentations focus upon a discernible theme or clearly evident core of inquiry.

3.2.2. Clear evidence of independent and collaborative work with regards to presentations and published articles.

3.2.3. Supervision of graduate research and joint publications with students.

3.2.4. Examples of quality research might include:

3.2.5. Refereed articles and presentations

3.2.6. Scholarly books and monographs

3.2.7. Serving as referee for research journals and conferences

3.2.8. Serving as a conference paper discussant

3.2.9. Serving on editorial or review boards

3.2.10. Receipt of award or other recognition for research efforts

3.2.11. Citation of work or favorable reviews of publications

3.2.12. Obtaining grants

3.3. Standards for Quality Extension and Engagement

Extension and engagement activities are critical to the development of the agricultural industry and the clientele groups served by the department. Quality extension and engagement activities are characterized by programmatic activities, rather than single activities. Evidence of quality extension and engagement, as it applies to faculty in this department may include:

3.3.1. Development of models for evaluation of extension activities.

3.3.2. Innovation and quality in reporting extension accomplishments and impacts.

3.3.3. Presentations on extension programs and activities at state, regional, and national conferences.

3.3.4. Effective training of extension personnel to carry out their responsibilities in evaluation and accountability.

3.3.5. An effective program of professional development activities for secondary agriculture teachers.

3.3.6. Growth in quantity and quality of secondary agricultural education programs in the state.

3.4. Standards for Quality Service

Service to the university community, its clientele and constituencies, professional organizations, and to the citizens of the state, the nation, and the world is a significant and indispensable faculty activity. Quality service is typically characterized as continuous, diligent service in areas of individual expertise or proficiency. Evidence of quality service may include:

3.4.1. A record of service to the department by chairing and actively participating on departmental committees.

3.4.2. Chairing or participating on major committees of the college and/or coordinating major service functions of the college.

3.4.3. Chairing or participating on university standing or ad hoc committees.

3.4.4. Holding an elected office in a state, regional, or national organization; serving on an organization’s boards/governing bodies.

3.4.5. Advising or counseling student groups, associations, or clubs.

3.4.6. Serving internal and external publics by conducting workshops, making presentations, and providing professional expertise.

3.5. Standards for National Prominence

When considering a faculty member’s promotion to the rank of professor, the national reputation of the person being considered is of major importance. National prominence does not mean that a person is merely known by a majority of his or her peers nationally, but, rather, it means that the person is known for their expertise within the profession and this expertise has been of value to the profession. Ways of documenting national prominence include:

3.5.1. Letters of evaluation by peers from outside the university identifying the area in which the candidate has national prominence, and the impact the candidate’s work has had on the profession should be described.

3.5.2. Evidence of invited activities: invitations to make presentations, to write articles in journals, to referee manuscripts, and to serve as a discussant of papers in the candidate’s area of expertise.

3.5.3. Evidence of the positive influence of a candidate’s scholarly work may be demonstrated when the work is referenced in bibliographies and cited by others in the profession.

3.5.4. Professional activities in national or international organizations, such as holding an elected office or chairing an important committee or activity.

3.5.5. Receiving a national award or other recognition for outstanding accomplishments in the field.

4. Standards for Reappointment as Assistant Professor

Assistant Professor must show evidence of progress and performance in the areas of responsibility described in their Statement of Faculty Responsibility. They will have demonstrated ability to demonstrate scholarly work in their areas of responsibility with clear potential to achieve the standards required for promotion to Associate Professor with tenure.

Evidence can consist of student and peer teaching evaluations, peer research evaluations, peer extension evaluations. Positive performance must be recorded in all the areas of responsibility defined in the “Statement of Faculty Responsibility.”

5. Standards for Associate Professor with Tenure

5.1. The primary standard for promotion and tenure as Associate Professor is a potential for distinction in scholarship and program effectiveness. Potential is based on evidence that the candidate has several program areas (at least two in most cases) that are coherent and productive in their assigned areas of responsibility.

5.2. Accomplishments must include demonstrated scholarly work, characterized by originality, vigor, competence and publication success). The content of publications provides assessable evidence of scholarship, however, there is no quantitative index of publication numbers or types that assures a minimum satisfactory level of potential for distinction. Quality of publications is an important aspect of the scholarship assessment. Program effectiveness in teaching and extension must not only reflect scholarship but capacity to reach students and clientele. Effectiveness is assessed by information from learners, peer observers and the content of instructional materials. Both effectiveness and scholarship are required for tenure.

5.3. Accomplishments must include participation in university, college, and departmental affairs.

6. Standards for Professor

Before being promoted to the rank of professor, the individual must exhibit distinguished achievement in scholarship and program effectiveness. Scholarship will be evidenced by a national reputation in agricultural and extension education through directing graduate students, independent research publications and other indicators (grants, research citations and awards). Program effectiveness in extension is indicated by adoption of materials and methods inside and outside the state and recognition by other disciplines. Distinguished teaching is recognized through items that include, awards, innovations, and student achievements. Accomplishments must include participation in university, college, and departmental affairs.

7. Procedures for RPT Review

7.1. Procedures for Candidates Subject to Mandatory Review

7.1.1. Candidates are notified of mandatory reviews (reappointment of assistant professors or promotion from assistant to associate professors) by August 15, the year prior to their review.

7.1.2. Candidates, with assistance of faculty mentors, prepare their dossiers according to the guidelines established by the university.

7.1.3. Dossiers are submitted to the department head by August 1 of the year the candidate is to be reviewed and distributed to the departmental faculty holding the rank of associate or full professor (departmental voting faculty for reappointment, promotion, and tenure requests).

7.1.4. For promotion to the rank of Associate Professor with tenure, outside reviews are solicited as early as possible, with the candidate and the department head submitting names of potential outside reviewers.

7.1.5. The departmental voting faculty (DVF) are convened by the chair of the Department Personnel Committee to review the candidate’s dossier prior to October 1. DVF members are those tenured faculty whose primary responsibilities are in the Department of Agricultural and Extension Education and hold the appropriate faculty rank to review the candidates’ dossiers,. Faculty members whose primary responsibilities are in another unit, but for whom the department is their tenure home, are not eligible to vote, i.e. are not DVF members.

7.1.6. Following discussion of the candidate’s dossier, the departmental voting faculty vote on the reappointment, promotion, and/or tenure decision by secret ballot. Departmental voting faculty who are unable to attend the meeting may vote by absentee ballot or may elect to abstain from the vote.

7.1.7. The vote of the faculty is communicated to the department head by the chair of the Personnel Committee, who also provides a written summary of the candidate’s strengths and areas in need of improvement.

7.1.8. The department head reviews the candidate’s dossier, the faculty vote, and the written summary of the voting faculty and develops a written evaluation with a recommendation to the Dean and the College of Agriculture and Life Sciences RPT Committee.

7.1.9. The candidate is notified of the faculty vote and provided with the written assessment of the voting faculty. The candidate may respond in writing within five working days.

7.1.10. The dossier, including the cover page with the vote of the faculty and recommendation of the department head, the outside reviews, the written assessment of the voting faculty, and the department head’s written assessment are forwarded to the College of Agriculture and Life Science Reappointment, Promotion, and Tenure Committee for review.

7.1.11. Decisions at the College, University, and Board of Trustees levels will be communicated to the faculty member.

7.2. Procedures for Candidates for Non-Mandatory Review (promotion from Associate to Full Professor or Early Promotion from Assistant to Associate Professor)

7.2.1. A faculty member may make a personal request to the Department Head that she/he be considered for promotion and/or tenure review. Any of the full professors may recommend to the Department Head that a faculty member be considered for promotion and tenure review. Such requests for promotion and tenure review should be made to the Department Head by January 1.

7.2.2. The Department Head or a full professor designated by the Department Head may provide guidance to the faculty candidate in preparing promotion materials (promotion dossier).

7.2.3. The promotion dossier shall be prepared by the candidate and delivered to the Department Head prior to August 1.

7.2.4. In the case of faculty requesting consideration for promotion to the rank of Professor, a committee of all full professors in the department is convened by the Department Head (as described in 7.1.5). In the case of faculty requesting consideration for promotion to Associate Professor, the review committee will consist of all tenured associate and full professors (as described in 7.1.5). The committee shall elect one of its members to serve as the chairperson of the committee. The Department Head shall serve as an ex-officio, non-voting member of the committee. Usually the matter of tenure is not an issue with promotion to full professor because the tenure issue has been resolved at the associate professor decision level. However, the issue of tenure may be considered at the same time the promotion to Professor is under review. In this case, the tenure decision is considered independently by the internal review committee.

7.2.5. The Department Head transfers the promotion materials to the chairperson of the internal review committee and gives the committee a time frame within which it must complete its deliberation. No less than four weeks should be allowed for committee review.

7.2.6. The Department Head independently reviews the candidate’s promotion dossier.

7.2.7. The committee meets to discuss the candidate’s dossier and to vote on the promotion and/or tenure request. During the meeting, the Department Head receives an oral evaluation of the candidate’s record from the committee and the vote of the internal review committee. At this meeting the Department Head announces the results of her/his independent review.

7.2.8. The chair of the internal review committee prepares a letter that summarizes the review of the committee. The Department Head prepares a separate written review of her/his assessment of the candidate’s dossier. The Department Head meets and shares with the candidate the results of the departmental review within five working days of the meeting of the internal review committee. The candidate is given the opportunity to submit a written response to the committee or the Department Head to be included in the promotion packet. The candidate may choose to withdraw her/his request for promotion by submitting a written withdrawal request to the Department Head.

7.2.9. A minimum of six external reviewers are selected from a list of names developed mutually by the Department Head and the candidate seeking promotion. The external reviewers are individuals of national prominence who hold the rank of Professor at institutions comparable to North Carolina State University. The Department Head selects three reviewers; the candidate selects three reviewers. The Department Head solicits all of the external reviews.

7.2.10. The Department Head completes the dossier cover form, including the vote of the faculty, and sends to the Dean of the College the candidate’s promotion dossier, supporting documentation, the written summary from the internal review committee, the written recommendation from the Department Head, and all external reviews received. The vote of the faculty and the recommendation of the Department Head are sent as recommendations to the Dean.