Authority: Executive Vice Chancellor and Provost
History: First Issued: November 20, 2001. Last Revised: March 27, 2020.
Office of the Provost RPT Website
Contact Info: Department Chair (919-515-8315)
This rule describes the standards and procedures for reappointment, promotion and tenure (RPT) in the Department of Art and Design and is supplemental to and consistent with the college rule and university Academic Tenure Policy.
2. AREAS OF FACULTY RESPONSIBILITY
Faculty members in the Department of Art and Design have responsibility in a mix of the following realms: teaching and mentoring students, discovery of knowledge through discipline-guided inquiry, creative artistry and literature, extension and engagement with constituencies outside the university, and service in professional societies and within the university itself. The individual faculty member’s assigned realms are described in their Statement of Faculty Responsibilities.
3. GENERAL STANDARDS
Consistent with the broad definitions of scholarship identified within university policy and regulations and college rules for reappointment, promotion, and tenure, the Department of Art and Design considers the following types of activity and measures of performance as appropriate for consideration in reviewing its faculty. This list is not exclusive; it simply provides common measures by category to guide department, college, and university reviews. The department expects each faculty to seek annually at least one source of outside funding and scholarly participation through formal proposals or presentations and to disseminate annually the results of scholarship in at least one venue. The two areas of scholarship Art and Design faculty may follow are either performance/practice or research.
3.1.1 Performance/Practice -The Department of Art and Design finds the following types of performance appropriate for Art and Design faculty:
- Professional art or design practice – Faculty concentrating their efforts in this form of scholarship would be expected to work in areas consistent with their academic preparation and teaching assignments. It is assumed that output would exceed mere freelance practice in design and would represent a creative and intellectual stretch beyond client service. Example of work should be documented in slide or electronic form; publications should be photocopied. Typical measures of performance by peers/dissemination include:
- Professional competitions/exhibitions – Performance quality relates to stature of sponsor (local/regional/national/international); number selected/number entered; jurors; reputation; and critical reviews.
- Reproduction of work in publications and online – Performance quality relates to stature of publication (refereed/non-refereed, local/regional/national/international distribution, area of scholarship); context of coverage (feature article, documentation of exhibition); and critical reviews.
- Publication of writing on art, design or both – Performance quality relates to stature of publications in which candidate’s writing appears (local/ regional/ national/international, area of scholarship) and nature of writing (book review, feature article, critical review).
- Professional testimony – Performance quality relates to the stature of reviewer/scope of project/ and level of critical review of the work by the reviewer (serious critiques by reviewer about the candidate’s work in relation to other works in the field and the real value of the work to the community.) However, professional testimony cannot serve as the only evidence.
- Panels/juries/editorial boards – Performance quality relates to invitations to the candidate to serve on professional art panels and juries for competitions and publications/stature of panel/jury (local/regional/national/international/graduate/professional, fellow jurors’ reputations and stature of sponsor.) (university, association, publication.)
- Lectures/invitations to present – Performance quality relates to stature of sponsor and audience (community, university, association); scope of presentation participation (delivering a paper, portfolio presentation); and critical reviews.
3.1.2 Research – Faculty concentrating their efforts in this form of scholarship would be expected to work in areas consistent with their academic preparation and teaching assignments. It is assumed that the candidate’s output would make an original contribution to the body of knowledge about art, design or design education. Typical measures of performance by peers and forms of dissemination include:
- Grants and sponsored projects – Performance quality relates to development of research proposals; securing of funding; ability to engage graduate students; project execution; and critical evaluation.
- Unfunded research – While some research efforts do not require external funding or are in early stages, they may achieve results worthy of evaluation. In such cases, the department must rely on external reviewers for peer assessment of the quality of the research; relevance of the project to the field; and potential to garner future funding/dissemination opportunities. It is expected that candidates would include a development plan for such work that indicates future funding sources and possible publication venues.
- Published work – Performance quality relates to stature of publication, national distribution, area of scholarship, and scope of work (abstract/article.)
- Citations – Performance quality relates to frequency with which the candidate’s research work is cited or serves as a platform for another researcher.
- Reviews of proposals/editorial boards – Performance quality relates to invitations to the candidate to serve on professional panels that review proposals for funding or editorial boards for publications in his/her area of expertise/ scope of work; stature of the funding organization or publication/ status of the authors being reviewed (graduate student/professional); and fellow reviewers’ reputations.
- Lectures/invitations to present – Performance quality relates to stature of sponsor and audience (university, association, researchers); scope of presentation participation (delivering a paper at a professional conference, delivering keynote); area of scholarship represented by the venue; and critical reviews.
3.2 Teaching / Instruction
It is expected that faculty recommended for reappointment, promotion, or tenure will achieve satisfactory status in teaching performance. Appropriate evidence for the evaluation of teaching performance include:
3.2.1 Preparation for instructions Presentation and interpersonal communication skills
3.2.2 Knowledge of subject area /currency and responsiveness to the profession
3.2.3 Delivery of required content in assigned courses
3.2.4 Fair and responsible evaluation of student performance
3.2.5 New course development and curricular innovation
3.2.7 Service on graduate committees, lecture courses
3.2.8 Student semester evaluations of courses and instruction
3.2.9 Department peer evaluations of instruction and student outcomes (could include classroom observation)
3.2.10 Course syllabi and project briefs
3.2.11 Peer evaluations of candidate contributions to curriculum planning and evaluation
3.2.12 Testimony from alumni (letters solicited by the review committee)
3.3 Extension and Engagement
Extending and/or engaging the department’s mission within the community may also be considered, including:
3.3.1 Presentations to middle and high school groups
3.3.2 Work with K-12 teachers, guidance counselors, and principals
3.3.3 Pro Bono design services not considered under scholarship
3.3.4 Serving on local competitions boards that are not of a professional nature
Although the assigned service responsibilities will vary according to the number of faculty and committees, it is expected that faculty will carry 2-4 committee assignments per year. The scope of work and level of performance (as reported by peers) will be considered.
3.4.1 Service contributions within the university may include, but are not limited to:
- Advising or presenting to student groups
- Participation at departmental events, e.g., open house, admissions reviews, graduation
- Contributions to general well-being of the department, e.g., carrying a fair share of the work load, installation of exhibits
3.4.2 Service contributions to the profession may include, but are not limited to:
- Service on boards of directors (local/regional/national/international)
- Volunteerism on professional projects
- Pro-Bono design services not considered under scholarship
- Contributions to professional journals that are not reviewed under scholarship
- Accreditation or program reviews at other schools
- Service on thesis committees at other schools
3.5 Graduated Scale of Performance Evaluation
The Department of Art and Design uses a graduated scale in evaluating faculty performance. Levels of performance are as follows:
3.5.1 Less than adequate – The candidate does not show evidence of minimally acceptable performance. Failure in several of the categories described 3.1, 3.2, 3.3, 3.4 or 3.5 above, e.g., failure to initiate scholarly activity, to disseminate results, or to subject work to peer review; failure to serve on department, college, and/or university committees or to contribute to the life of the department through participation in departmental and college events.
3.5.2 Adequate – The candidate shows minimally acceptable performance or promise for future accomplishment. Candidate shows acceptable performance in most categories of teaching.Candidate has a consistent program of scholarship, realistic plans for dissemination of the information, and is prepared to subject work to peer review. Candidate pursues outside funding/participation to support scholarship. Candidate serves on department, college, and/or university’s committees and contributes to the life of the department through participation in department and college events.
3.5.3 More than adequate – The candidate exceeds the minimum requirements of the department. Candidate excels in some categories of teaching and contributes to curricular innovation. Candidate has a consistent program of scholarship, record of dissemination, and subjects work to peer review. Candidate acquires outside funding/participation to support scholarship. Candidate serves on department, college, and/or university committees, chairs some committees, contributes to the life of the department through participation in department and college events. Candidate makes meaningful contributions to the community and profession through outside service.
3.5.4 Outstanding – The candidate establishes a consistent reputation outside the university through exceptional performance. Candidate is exemplary in teaching, contributes to curricular innovation, and is recognized as a leader in education. Candidate is recognized for scholarly contributions to the field and has a sustained record of dissemination and funding support for scholarship. Candidate serves on department, college, and/or university committees, chairs some committees, contributes to the life of the department, and makes meaningful contributions to the community and profession through outside service.
4. STANDARDS FOR REAPPOINTMENT AS ASSISTANT PROFESSOR
Reappointment as Assistant Professor requires that the individual is, at least, adequate in teaching, scholarship and service and is making satisfactory progress towards meeting the standards for promotion to the rank of Associate Professor with tenure (Section 5).
5. STANDARDS FOR ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR WITH TENURE
Promotion to Associate Professor with tenure requires that the individual be, at least, more than adequate in teaching and scholarship and, at least, adequate in service. In general, the expectation is that a faculty member will have demonstrated the ability to achieve the standards to be a full professor (Section 6.).
6. STANDARDS FOR PROFESSOR
Promotion to Professor requires that a faculty member will be outstanding in scholarship, more than adequate in teaching and adequate in service.
7. PROCEDURES FOR RPT REVIEW
7.1 Dossier Content
The materials to be assembled in the dossier for reappointment, promotion, and tenure are specified in the university’s Reappointment, Promotion, and Tenure Dossier Format Requirements regulation.
7.2 External Evaluations
External letters are required in reviews for promotion and tenure. They should be prepared by persons nationally recognized as leaders in the candidate’s area of scholarship who are willing to write a timely, substantive review of the candidate’s performance and willing to submit their vitae as a summary of qualifications to provide the review. The reviewers should not include persons who have such a close working relationship with the candidate that they might not be able to provide an objective assessment of the candidate’s work. Two evaluators will be chosen from a list provided by the candidate. The remaining evaluators will be selected by the Chair in consultation with DVF.
Absentee votes may be submitted to the Chair by faculty who are unable to attend the DVF meeting. The Chair will make available key material from the candidate’s dossier to eligible voting faculty who are on leave. Faculty members are encouraged to submit a written explanation with the absentee vote. Department Chair will announce the deadline for submission of absentee votes.
7.4 Schedule for Faculty Review, Reappointment, Promotion and Tenure
The following schedule establishes target dates for all specific required actions in the reappointment, promotion, and tenure review process. Further, it identifies the party responsible for initiating action or decision at each step in the process. This schedule must meet the Provost’s timetable and therefore is subject to change relative to this requirement. The dates listed are guides which may need to be adjusted each year to account for weekends, academic holidays, etc.
May 1 Department Chair to notify all faculty of the procedures and schedule for review.
May 15 Department Chair to meet with each candidate who is required to be reviewed or who wishes to be reviewed. Purpose of meeting is to make sure each candidate has the latest information regarding criteria, procedures, and schedule from the University, College, and Department. Begin discussion to identify external reviewers.
August 15 Candidate to submit complete RPT dossier for review. List of external reviewers established with consideration of potential reviewers from candidate and the established University and College criteria.
September 1 Department Chair to have completed the list of external reviewers who have agreed to perform reviews. Document mailed to external reviewers.
September 15 The Candidate is required to make a public presentation to the College
– October 15 community. This presentation is to be scheduled by the Department Chair during this time period and inform all faculty, especially the Departmental Voting Faculty.
October 1 Receipt of comments from external reviewers.
October 15 Completion of review by the Department Voting Faculty with written assessment to the Department Chair.