RUL 05.67.100 – School of Architecture Standards and Procedures for Reappointment, Promotion and Tenure
Authority: Executive Vice Chancellor and Provost
History: First Issued: November 2, 2000. Last Revised: March 23, 2020.
Related Policies:
NCSU POL 05.20.01 – Appointment, Reappointment, Promotion and Permanent Tenure
NCSU RUL05.67.106 – College of Design RPT Criteria and Procedures
NCSU REG05.20.27 – Statement of Faculty Responsibilities
NCSU REG 05.20.34 Professional Faculty Ranks and Appointments
NCSU REG05.20.05 – Consultation and Written Assessments, Recommendations and Responses in RPT Review
NCSU REG 05.20.20 – RPT Dossier Format Requirements
Additional References:
Office of the Provost RPT Website
Contact Info: School Director (919-515-8350)
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 This rule describes the standards and procedures for reappointment, promotion and tenure (RPT) in the School of Architecture and is supplemental to and consistent with POL 05.20.01 – Appointment, Reappointment, Promotion and Permanent Tenure, RUL 05.67.106 College of Design RPT Criteria and Procedures, and REG 05.20.34 Non-Tenure Track Faculty Ranks and Appointments.
1.2 The mission of the School of Architecture is:
To educate students for the profession of architecture;
To promote growth, change, and improvement in the profession and academic discipline of architecture through creative work, scholarship, research and service; and
To increase public awareness of the nature of architecture and its essential contribution to life and society.
2. Areas of Faculty Responsibility
Realms of responsibility for faculty members are outlined in POL 05.20.01 – Appointment, Reappointment, Promotion and Permanent Tenure and include Teaching and Mentoring, Discovery of Knowledge, Creative Artistry, Technological Innovation, Extension and Engagement, and Service.
2.1 Teaching
Fundamental to the education of the School’s students is their education as human beings and as future members of the architectural profession who have been prepared to enter the profession and possess the tools and discipline necessary to continue to grow after their formal education. Critical to the mission of the School is continual accreditation by the National Architectural Accrediting Board of the school’s professional degrees. Each course and each faculty member’s contributions within the School are integral parts of this mission.
2.2 Scholarship
Scholarship in the form of the discovery of knowledge, creative artistry, and technological innovation is essential to the School of Architecture. It is through activities in these areas that a faculty member remains current, that ideas are tested, that the reputation of the School is often measured, and that contributions are made to the profession.
All faculty members in the School of Architecture are expected to be continually active in one or more of these areas of scholarship. The School’s Head should continually, and especially as part of annual reviews, remind the faculty member of the importance of scholarly contributions.
2.3 Extension and Engagement with Constituencies Outside the University
Extension activities for an architectural faculty member can take several avenues. At times, the appointment to some of these activities are in themselves prestigious, while at other times it is the efforts of the faculty member within the context of the service that deserves recognition. Efforts in areas of extension and service are expected to be in areas consistent with a faculty member’s academic preparation and teaching assignments. These activities are important as they extend the School’s influence and reputation to the community, the profession, and other architectural programs.
2.4 Service in Professional Societies and Service and Engagement within the University
Each member of the School of Architecture faculty is expected to participate in the affairs of the University, College, School and / or professional societies.
3. General Standards
3.1. Performance Categories
3.1.1. Less than satisfactory. The candidate does not show evidence of minimally acceptable performance, i.e., failure in several of the categories described in Sections 3.5, failure to initiate scholarly activity, to disseminate results, or to subject the work to peer review, failure to serve on School, College, and/or University committees and failure to contribute to the life of the School through participation in School and College events.
3.1.2. Satisfactory. The candidate shows acceptable performance and promise for future accomplishment. The candidate shows acceptable performance in most categories of teaching. The candidate has a consistent program of scholarship, realistic plans for dissemination, and is prepared to subject work to peer review. The candidate serves on School, College, and /or University committees and contributes to the life of the School through participation in School and College events.
3.1.3. More than Satisfactory. The candidate exceeds acceptable requirements of the School. The candidate excels in some categories of teaching and contributes to curricular innovation. The candidate has a consistent program of scholarship, a record of dissemination, and subjects work to peer review with successful results. The candidate serves on School, College, and/or University committees, chairs some committees, contributes to the life of the School through participation in School and College events, and makes contributions to the community and profession through outside service.
3.1.4. Exemplary. The candidate establishes a sustained reputation outside the University through exceptional performance. The candidate is exemplary in teaching, contributes to curricular innovation, and has a record of academic contributions outside this School and College. The candidate has a record of distinction, is recognized for contributions, and has a sustained record of dissemination. The candidate serves on School, College, and/or University committees, chairs some committees, contributes to the life of the School through participation in School and College events, and makes meaningful contributions to the community and profession through outside service.
3.2. Criteria for Evaluation of Teaching Performance.
3.2.1. New Course Development and Innovation. Consideration should be given to the course, its development, and its importance to the curriculum. Must include peer observation of instruction.
3.2.2. Curricular Innovation. Consideration should be given to the candidate’s contribution to and involvement with the curriculum.
3.2.3. Current Syllabi and Class Assignments. Consideration should be given to course development, rigor, and appropriateness of syllabi and assignments to course objectives and appropriate student evaluation.
3.2.4. Advising. Consideration should be given to the involvement in and effectiveness of the candidate’s student advising at the graduate and/or undergraduate levels. This advice may be formal academic advising or informal advice regarding professional or academic development.
3.2.5. Student Evaluations. Consideration should be given to the course and teaching evaluations from the last three years.
3.2.6. Evaluations from Alumni. The review committee may solicit, with the help of the candidate, testimonials from alumni who have had the opportunity to reflect on the impact of candidate’s teaching on their development. In many respects, this time away from the moment of teaching can make these testimonials more meaningful than when solicited at the time of teaching.
3.2.7. Participation in Other Classes. Consideration should be given to the candidate’s participation in other faculty’s classes (lecture, seminar, studio). Such participation offers excellent opportunities for peer assessment of the candidate, their contribution and preparation.
3.2.8. Visiting Critic, Guest Lecturer, Guest Juror at Other Schools/Departments of Architecture. Consideration should be given to the type and length of involvement by the candidate. Testimonials from the other Schools/Departments should be considered if available.
3.2.9. Awards for Teaching Contributions. Consideration should be given to the status of the sponsoring agency (international, national, regional, state, or local) and the basis of the award.
3.3. Criteria for Evaluation of Scholarship in the Realms of Discovery of Knowledge, Creative Artistry, and Technological Innovation.
The following types of activities and measures of performance are seen as appropriate for consideration of faculty in the School. This list is not exclusive; rather it provides a guide for School, College, and University reviews. The School has not specified a given number of each type of performance at each professorial rank. Simply stated, it is more appropriate that the reviewing body assess the quality and importance of the scholarship activity, that it recognize that some of the appropriate activities have greater impact than others, and that some take considerably more effort and time to accomplish.
3.3.1. Professional Consultation and Architectural Practice. It is assumed that work in this area would exceed simple client service and demonstrate a contribution to the profession, represent a creative or intellectual stretch beyond normal practice, or be recognized by awards or publication. It is also recognized that contributions in this form of scholarship are difficult and usually slow to develop. Success often depends on several participants beyond the control of the faculty member, and appropriate recognition of contributions is usually to a very small percentage of endeavors. Yet, efforts in this type of scholarship are very important to a professional program. Evidence of work should be documented through visual reproduction. Efforts in this form of scholarship are expected to be in areas consistent with a faculty member’s academic preparation and teaching assignments.
3.3.2. Professional License. Successful completion of licensure examination is in itself an accomplishment and represents a level of capability to be legally trusted to design buildings. It also signifies a desire to engage in professional activity in architecture.
3.3.3. Professional Commissions. While securing commissions to do architectural work does not usually represent normal peer evaluation, it sometimes, especially in public buildings, is the result of a process that involves competition for the project. Consideration should be given to the architect selection process, the prominence of the project, and the reputation of the client.
3.3.4. Design Awards. Consideration should be given to the status of the awards program itself (national, regional, state, or local), the sponsor of the awards program (American Institute of Architects, trade organizations, or material suppliers), the reputation of the awards program, and the prestige of the jury. Where it is possible to ascertain, the number of entries juried and the level of award should also be considered. Also to be considered are awards for a body of work and not just a single building or group of buildings.
3.3.5. Publication of Professional Work in Journals. Consideration should be given to the status of the publication (book, professional journal, trade magazine, popular journal, newspaper), its distribution (international, national, regional, local), and the type of coverage (featured article, article, mentioned as part of larger topic). For publication of teaching activities, consideration should be given to the status of the publication (book, professional journal – refereed or not, trade magazine, popular journal), its distribution (international, national, regional, local), the type of coverage (featured article, article, mentioned as part of larger topic), and critical reception.
3.3.6. Competitions. Design competitions are one way of securing professional work. It is also a means by which an architect/designer can explore ideas without a commission to do a building. Consideration should be given to the level of competition (international, national, regional, or local), the number of entrants, the scope of the work, and the prestige of the sponsor and the jurors (thus the significance of the competition).
3.3.7. Exhibitions. Consideration should be given to the status of the exhibition, whether the entries were juried or not, the prestige of the exhibition’s location, whether a one person show or one piece in a larger exhibition, and documented critical reviews.
3.3.8. Invited Lectures. As a result of professional work, one might be invited to present in a lecture format either a single piece of work or a body of work. The importance here is the dissemination of information and the recognition of the importance of and interest in one’s professional work. Consideration should be given to the significance of the audience and sponsor (a university, a professional society, a trade organization, or a civic group), to whether the sponsor is a national, regional, or local group, and to the scope of the presentation (a lecture, participation on a panel, a tour of the building).
3.3.9. Consulting. In the capacity of a professional, one might be asked to assist another organization in a consulting role. Consideration should be given to the nature and scope of the consulting (policy making, technical assistance, or application of expertise), the employing agency (a government group or agency, a private organization, or a firm), the impact of the consultation. Documentation (reviews, published articles or books giving credit to the faculty member, or evidence of the impact of the consulting) of the dissemination of this consultation should be considered.
3.3.10. Research. It is assumed that output in this area will make original contributions to the body of knowledge about architecture, architectural practice, or architectural education (this category could include teaching innovations when they are undertaken with a research perspective and are applicable to the field in general). Efforts in this form of scholarship are expected to be in areas consistent with a faculty member’s academic preparation and teaching assignments. In many respects, this type of scholarship comes closest to the type of scholarship normally produced in a university. However, reviewers must be aware of the caveat regarding funding indicated below when judging an architecture faculty member‘s contribution in this area.
3.3.11. Grants and Sponsored Programs. Consideration should be given to the development of research proposals, the securing of funding, the ability to engage and support graduate students, the execution of the project, and the critical evaluation of the finished project. It should be recognized that, because of the synthetic nature of architecture, funding within the discipline often tends to lap into other areas: engineering, computer technology, social programs, history, etc. There are few funding programs that sponsor strictly architectural research. Consideration should be also given to the prestige of the funding agency, the impact or the potential of the impact of the work, and the value of the grant.
3.3.12. Unfunded Research. Because of the circumstances indicated above, some valuable research might have to be accomplished without funding. In these cases, consideration should be given to the dissemination of this research through publications, presentations, and lectures (see below). External reviewers may also be asked to give assessments of the quality and importance of this work, its relevance to the field, and its potential to garner future funding or dissemination opportunities. In the case of work in its beginning stages, it is expected that the candidate would include a development plan that indicates possible funding sources and venues for dissemination.
3.3.13. Publication of Research Work. Consideration should be given to the status of the publication (refereed/non-refereed; national distribution; and professional, scholastic, trade, or popular journal) and the scope of the work (book, chapter in a book, article, or abstract).
3.3.14. Reviews and Citations. Consideration should be given to the quality of the work as reviewed in journals and to the frequency with which the candidate’s research work is cited or serves as a platform for another researcher.
3.3.15. Papers Presented. One of the avenues for dissemination of research work is the presentation of papers at professional conferences. Consideration should be given to the level of the conference (international, national, or regional), whether the papers are refereed or not, and the amount of involvement in the conference (paper given, moderator, panelist). The paper’s inclusion in the published proceedings of the conference should also be considered.
3.3.16. Invited Lectures. Consideration should be given to the status of the sponsor and the audience (university, association, professional organization, researchers), the scope of the presentation (a series of lectures, a single lecture, or a keynote address), the area of scholarship represented, and critical reviews.
3.3.17. Proposal Reviewers and Editorial Boards. The candidate’s status might result in invitations to serve on professional or academic panels that review proposals for funding, to referee papers for inclusion in professional or academic conferences, or to sit on editorial boards of professional or academic journals. Consideration should be given to the scope of the work, the prestige of the panel, conference or journal, and the reputation of fellow reviewer’s or editorial board members.
3.3.18. Awards. Consideration should be given to the type of award given (international, national, regional, or local), whether the award is for a particular piece of research or a body of work, and the prestige of the awarding agency.
3.4. Criteria for Evaluation of Extension and Engagement with Constituencies Outside the University
3.4.1. Service on Awards or Competition Juries. Consideration should be given to status of the sponsoring agency (professional, trade, or popular – governmental or commercial), the level of the awards program or competition (international, national, regional, state, or local), and the prestige of the other jurors.
3.4.2. Presentations to Public or Civic Organizations. Consideration should be given to presentations about architecture, one’s work in architecture, or architectural education.
3.4.3. Publication in the Popular Press. Consideration should be given to articles in the popular press (newspapers, magazines) about architecture and architectural education, as well as in other non-professional venues.
3.4.4. Pro-bono Architectural Service within the Community. Consideration should be given to the level of service and involvement by the candidate within areas consistent with their academic preparation and teaching assignments.
3.5. Criteria for Evaluation of Service in Professional Societies and Service and Engagement within the University
3.5.1. Service in Professional and Academic Organizations. Consideration should be given to the level of the organization (international, national, regional, state, or local) and the candidate’s involvement (board of directors, chair of a committee, member of a committee, organizer of an activity, participant).
3.5.2. Accreditation Teams. Consideration should be given to whether the candidate participated as the chair or a member of visiting teams, the number of accreditation visits, and any special recognition or accomplishments resulting from such activities.
3.5.3. Each member of the School of Architecture faculty is expected to participate in the affairs of the University, College, or School. This participation can be as an active member of a committee or task force. Consideration, in the evaluation of the candidate’s service, should be given to the level of involvement of the candidate (chair or member – active or not), the contribution of the candidate as verified by observation or peer testimonial, how active the committee was, and the importance of the committee.
4. STANDARDS FOR REAPPOINTMENT AS ASSISTANT PROFESSOR
The expectation of an Assistant Professor seeking reappointment in the School of Architecture is that performance is satisfactory in all areas of the faculty member’s responsibility and more than satisfactory in one area.
5. STANDARDS FOR ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR WITH TENURE
The expectation of a faculty member seeking tenure and promotion to associate professor in the School of Architecture is that performance in both teaching and scholarship is more than satisfactory and at least satisfactory in the other areas of the faculty member’s responsibility.
6. STANDARDS FOR PROFESSOR
The expectation of a faculty member seeking promotion to full professor in the School of Architecture is that performance in scholarship is exemplary and more than satisfactory in teaching and the other areas of the faculty member’s responsibility.
7. STANDARDS FOR NON-TENURE TRACK FACULTY WITH PROFESSORIAL RANK
The standards described above also apply to all non-tenure track faculty with professorial rank and any promotion must follow procedures outlined in REG 05.20.34 Non-Tenure Track Faculty Ranks and Appointments.
8. PROCEDURES FOR RPT REVIEW
The School of Architecture follows the procedures and schedule as described in RUL 05.67.106 College of Design RPT Criteria and Procedures.
8.1 External Evaluations
External letters are required in reviews for promotion and tenure and are consistent with REG.05.20.05 – Consultation and Written Assessments, Recommendations and Responses in RPT Review and RUL05.67.106 – College of Design RPT Criteria and Procedures. Two evaluators will be chosen from a list provided by the candidate. The remaining evaluators will be selected by the Chair in consultation with Departmental Voting Faculty.
8.2 Definition of Departmental Voting Faculty (DVF)
Departmental Voting Faculty are defined in POL05.20.01 – Appointment, Reappointment, Promotion and Permanent Tenure and RUL05.67.106 – College of Design RPT Criteria and Procedures.
8.2.1 Procedures for a Faculty Vote on RPT
The DVF committee will elect a Chair. After all members of the DVF have reviewed materials in the online RPT system and there has been appropriate discussion, voting will be done by secret or open ballot as determined by the committee. In addition, a complete report will be prepared on the full range of votes cast, including a brief specific documentation of the candidate’s strengths and weaknesses. The written assessment will be circulated to, and approved by, the DVF before being entered into the online RPT system.
8.3 Absentee Voting
Absentee votes may be submitted to the Chair of the DVF by faculty who are unable to attend the DVF meeting. Absentee votes will be secret or open with regard to the DVF in a manner consistent with the voting in the committee. The Chair will make sure that all materials are available via the online RPT system to eligible voting faculty who are absent. Faculty members are encouraged to submit a written evaluation with their absentee vote. Chair of the DVF will announce the deadline for submission of absentee votes.