RUL 05.67.05 – Department of Biological and Agricultural Engineering Reappointment, Promotion and Tenure Standards and Procedures

Authority: Executive Vice Chancellor and Provost

History: First Issued: October 1, 2001. Last Revised: August 24, 2017.

Additional References:
Office of the Provost RPT Website

1. Introduction

This rule describes the standards and procedures of the Department of Biological and Agricultural Engineering for reappointment, promotion and tenure and is supplemental to and consistent with the NCSU POL 05.20.01 – Appointment, Reappointment, Promotion and Permanent Tenure and NCSU RUL05.67.22 – College of Agriculture and Life Sciences Reappointment, Promotion and Tenure Standards and Procedures.

2. Areas of Faculty Responsibility

The department recognizes the importance of a mix of activities leading to creative scholarship and supports the NCSU REG05.20.27 – Statements of Faculty Responsibilities. The areas of responsibility for an individual faculty member will be described in their Statement of Faculty Responsibilities.

General Standards

The department utilizes the Glassick Standards for evaluation of scholarly accomplishments. Publication as a form of scholarship should encompass the quantity, quality and most appropriate form and outlet as determined by Statement of Faculty Responsibilities.

Receipt of awards and honors provides a basis for quantifying recognition. Other examples are invitations to participate in symposia, to hold editorships, serve on national, regional and state review panels and policy panels. Nomination and election to positions of leadership in professional societies also indicate recognition.

Cumulative outstanding leadership within the university that contributes to the national or international recognition of university programs may be heavily weighed in lieu of the faculty member’s individual national or international recognition for scholarship and leadership.

3.1. Instruction Contributions – Teaching and Mentoring of Undergraduate and Graduate Students

3.1.1. Scholarly accomplishments in teaching, learning and advising are manifested in numerous ways via contributions in the instructional area. Creativity and innovation in the development of courses, pedagogical approaches, and contributions to curricular quality contribute to the scholarship of teaching. Some aspects of a faculty member’s teaching creativity should lead to scholarly publications on teaching methods, textbooks, laboratory manuals, audiovisual, computer-based educational programs, and other scholarly products. Invitations to participate in symposia, conferences, workshops and other activities related to teaching are important measures of recognition by peers on the regional, national, or international level. Effort and success in obtaining support via grants, contracts, gifts, etc. for the development and delivery of instructional material is important.

3.1.2. Teaching effectiveness must be evaluated by responses on student questionnaires as well as through evaluation by peers, e.g. direct observation of classroom teaching, examination of the syllabus, exercises and tests. Although single or infrequent observations can provide some data, regular observations are more valuable and useful. Evaluation of Teaching will be followed.

3.1.3. Standardized instruments such as ClassEval developed for course and instructor evaluation are expected, but in special cases (such as graduate-level courses or highly specific, low-enrollment courses) more appropriate methods may be used. Instructors should routinely remind and encourage students to utilize ClassEval. Specific written comments from students are valuable in all aspects of evaluating teaching effectiveness.

3.1.4. Academic advising is an integral part of the teaching responsibility and must be considered in any evaluation. A survey of students at or after graduation is an appropriate way to evaluate the effectiveness of faculty advising. Faculty should encourage students to utilize the college instrument developed for advising evaluation at least once a year to obtain feedback from students and the results from these assessments should be discussed with the department head. Advising load is another factor to be considered and must be managed by the department head.

3.1.5. Honors, awards, and other special recognitions are other important indicators of quality and dedication to teaching.

3.2. Research Contributions – Discovery of Knowledge Through Discipline-Guided Inquiry

3.2.1. Research productivity is usually equated with conducting research and reporting results in peer-reviewed journals, however, it also takes other forms. These forms may include the publication of books and the production of scholarly works of a form and type determined by the department or discipline. One example is development of computer software.

3.2.2. Quantity is an important indicator of regular activity, but more significant is the quality of the contribution to new knowledge in the field and its integration into practical application. The department must determine the relative weight given to various types and forms of research activity. The College defines peer-reviewed publication to be one that has undergone review by peers selected by an editorial board of a reputable, cited journal. Expectations for individual faculty members will depend upon their assignment as set forth in the NCSU REG05.20.27 – Statements of Faculty Responsibilities.

3.2.3. Effort and success in attracting extramural funding is important. This funding may take the form of direct grants, university mini-grants, memoranda of agreement, unrestricted gifts, in-kind support, and collaborative efforts.

3.2.4. Although independent research is often the basis of research activities and recognition, collaborative research is also important. It is often the basis for substantive support and the advancement of knowledge. Ability to cooperate with other faculty members is an important personal characteristic. Cooperation may include participating in successful regional programs.

3.2.5. Training of graduate students and postdoctoral scholars is an important contribution to a field. Success of graduates is an important measure of the strength of a program. Peer review and publication of graduate student and post-doctorate research is strong indication of effective mentoring.

3.3. Extension Contributions-Extension and Engagement with Constituents Outside the University

3.3.1. Extension and Engagement responsibilities include a variety of scholarly activities and efforts. Examples are technical assistance, applied research, and a variety of formal and non-formal educational efforts.

3.3.2. The programs developed and implemented must be coherent and focused in the area of responsibility with continuity among program activities. Effort must be focused on meeting the needs of clientele. Changes in program efforts may be appropriate with changes in political, financial or social emphasis and support and should be incorporated in a revised NCSU REG05.20.27 – Statements of Faculty Responsibilities. When appropriate, there should be a documented partnership with field faculty and a relationship between the program and the Cooperative Extension Plan of Work must be evident in goals and accomplishments.

3.3.3. Documented impacts must include the use of state-of-the-art techniques and innovative approaches that maximize benefits from the extension and engagement efforts. Impacts should include effective contributions to local, state and /or the larger society through the production of innovative materials and new approaches to solving problems. Evidence of accomplishments may include innovative instructional materials or demonstrations, technical assistance, and other methods.

3.3.4. Leadership and participation in interdisciplinary teams in development and delivery of extension programs must be documented. This includes cooperative relationships with other faculty within and outside the College, and with organizations that serve the same clientele. Effective leadership recognized by peers and clientele at the local, regional, and national levels should be demonstrated.

3.3.5. Continuous improvement in the field of concentration should be documented through increasing and updating skills, keeping abreast of clientele needs, and developing and applying relevant new knowledge. Recognized professional achievement through the production of refereed publications, peer reviewed extension publications, honors, awards, exhibitions, prizes, invited papers, and presentations should be achieved. Publication as a form of scholarship should encompass the quantity, quality and most appropriate form and outlet as set forth in the faculty member’s NCSU REG05.20.27 – Statements of Faculty Responsibilities.

3.3.6. Efforts at and success in attracting extramural funding is important. This may be in the form of direct grants, university mini-grants, memoranda of agreement, unrestricted gifts, in kind support and collaborative efforts.

3.4. Service in Professional Societies and Within the University Itself

All faculty members are expected to become involved in the operation of the department, college, and university by serving in various capacities (for example, on committees, boards, panels, task forces, and commissions). Faculty members are also expected to further their disciplines by providing service to their professional societies by serving as officers or on committees, serving as editors and reviewers for professional journals or other professional publication outlets, and serving on study and review panels for governmental agencies and funding organizations. Although there is a reasonable limit to the extent of involvement (to be managed by the department head), it is not unreasonable for these tasks to occupy an average of 10 to 15 percent of a faculty member’s time.

4. Standards for Reappointment as Assistant Professor

Reappointment as assistant professor requires that the faculty member provide clear evidence of an established program in accordance with his/her individual assignment as set forth in the individual’s original Letter of Offer and as described in the Statement of Faculty Responsibilities. Evidence must include items set forth in Section III of this document and show that the faculty member is making progress toward meeting the standards for promotion to associate professor with tenure.

5. Standards for Associate Professor With Tenure

There must be documentation of regular contributions to the discipline in appropriate forms. These contributions should be defined more broadly than the publication of research, as many different forms of scholarly activity contribute to the field.

Faculty must have established a regional reputation. Satisfactory progress towards the development of a national reputation should also be evident, as reputation among peers is important in evaluating faculty.

Departmental Voting Faculty decisions on promotion to Associate Professor with tenure will be made based on evidence that the faculty has an established program in accordance with their Statement of Faculty Responsibilities. The evidence must include the types of items set forth in Section III of this document. At a minimum, promotion to the Associate Professor level with tenure will require:

5.1. Recognized ability for distinction in teaching, independent research, extension and/or other scholarly activity that is germane to the faculty member’s assignment.

5.2. Clearly documented achievements, as appropriate for the individual’s Statement of Faculty Responsibilities, that demonstrate success in developing a classroom or outreach teaching program, an applied and/or basic research program, active participation and leadership of graduate programs, and/or leadership of appropriate extension programs.

5.3. Clear service-type contributions to department, college, university and professional affairs.

5.4. Clear evidence of progress toward development of a national reputation in the field.

5.5. Appropriate publication of scholarly activities performed at North Carolina State University.

6. Standards for Professor

Departmental Voting Faculty decisions on promotion to Professor will be made based on evidence that the faculty has an established program in accordance with their Statement of Faculty Responsibilities. The evidence must include the types of items set forth in Section III of this document and that both a national and international reputation in his/her field exists.

At a minimum, appointment to the professor level will require:

6.1. Distinguished achievement and leadership in teaching, in independent applied and/or basic research, or in extension and/or other scholarly activity that is germane to the faculty member’s assignment.

6.2. Clearly documented ability, as appropriate for the individual’s Statement of Faculty Responsibilities, that demonstrate continuing and increasing success in developing a classroom or outreach teaching program, applied and/or basic research program, continued active participation and leadership of graduate programs, and/or continued leadership of appropriate extension programs.

6.3. Clear service type contributions to the department, college, and university; as well as at the national and international level for professional organizations.

6.4. Clear evidence of the development of a national and international reputation in the field.

6.5. Appropriate publication of scholarly activities in the individual’s realm of teaching, research, and extension.

7. Procedures for RPT Review

7.1. Mentoring and annual review by Department Head

It is critical that faculty understand the process to the maximum extent possible, so that they can most effectively participate.

Each year, when the Department Head meets with faculty to discuss annual accomplishments, program directions, and mutual expectations; he/she shares with them the general needs and expectations for promotion and tenure.

The Department has a formal mentoring program in which each untenured faculty member will be assigned two tenured professors as mentors. The mentors will work with the faculty member to help set priorities, develop his/her primary and secondary programs, and resolve problems. They will assist the faculty member to be aware of the expectations for reappointment, promotion and tenure and keep them informed as to changes in policies and procedures.

7.2. Identification of candidates to be considered during a given year

There are several ways in which candidates may be identified for consideration for reappointment, promotion, and/or tenure. First there are candidates for whom consideration is mandatory based on University rules for initial appointments and for time in grade. Thus, new assistant professors must be considered for reappointment prior to the end of their third year and must be considered for tenure and promotion to associate professor by the end of their sixth year. In addition to those faculty for whom consideration is mandatory, there may be assistant professors who are considered early for promotion and tenure, there are associate professors who may be considered for professor at any time, and there are non-tenured faculty (such as research assistant professors and extension assistant professors) who may be considered for promotion. Non-mandatory candidates may be identified by the department head, mentors, other DVF, or by the candidates themselves.

7.3. Preliminary preparation of DOSSIER package by candidate

During annual spring meetings between the department head and individual faculty members, one topic of discussion is the reappointment, promotion, and tenure process and a preliminary evaluation is made of the status of potential candidates. Candidates identified by any of the above listed sources are then asked to prepare a preliminary DOSSIER package.

7.4. Review of preliminary package by departmental voting faculty (DVF)

All faculty members who prepare preliminary dossiers (both mandatory and non-mandatory) are requested to prepare those packages by t July 1st. These packages are then electronically distributed to the DVF. The DVF are asked to review the preliminary packages and provide input to both the department head and to the candidates concerning both the merit of the proposed action and the state of the package. This preliminary review is used by the department head and ultimately the candidate to decide whether to proceed with the RPT process.

7.5. Preparation of final package by candidate

If the faculty member decides to proceed (or if consideration is mandatory), the candidate is requested to finalize the portions of the dossier package which are the responsibility of the candidate. This should be completed by late August.

7.6. Solicitation of reviews by external evaluators

For candidates who decide to proceed with the RPT process (with the exception of reappointments of assistant professors), external evaluators are chosen to review the dossier package including examples of the candidates work. The final decision on external evaluators is made by the department head, subjective to NCSU REG05.20.05-Consultation and Written Assessments, Recommendations and Responses in RPT Review, after consultation with the candidate and DVF. Evaluators should be selected with the aim of obtaining evaluations from at least five (5) individuals with representation across the realms of responsibility in the Statement of Faculty Responsibilities. Evaluators are not asked for a judgment about promotion. Instead, they are asked for their professional judgment on the impact and quality of the candidate’s contributions. The packages should be sent to external evaluators by September 1st and evaluation letters received by September 30th.

7.7. Discussion and vote by Departmental Voting Faculty

The final dossier package prepared by the candidate is then distributed to the DVF for consideration at a meeting called during early October. At the DVF meeting, the dossier package including letters received from external reviewers will be discussed on the merits of each proposed RPT action. The discussion concerning each proposed action will be summarized by members of the faculty designated by the department head. These summaries become a part of the dossier package.

Departmental voting faculty are expected to make every possible effort to attend the meeting to consider RPT packages. However, it is inevitable that there may be unavoidable conflicts. The DVF who are unable to attend are encouraged to provide in advance written comments to the department head for inclusion in the discussion at the meeting.

All members of the DVF are required to participate in a formal vote subjective to NCSU REG05.20.05-Consultation and Written Assessments, Recommendations and Responses in RPT Review within 3 business days of the DVF discussion meeting.