RUL 05.67.102 – Department of Graphic Design and Industrial Design Reappointment, Promotion and Tenure Standards and Procedures

Authority: Executive Vice Chancellor and Provost

History: First Issued: November 20, 2001. Last Revised: September 14, 2010.

Related Policies: 
NCSU POL05.20.01 – Appointment, Reappointment, Promotion and Permanent Tenure
NCSU RUL05.67.106 – College of Design RPT Rule
NCSU REG05.20.20 – RPT Dossier Format Requirements
NCSU REG05.20.27 – Statements of Mutual Expectations

Additional References: 
Office of the Provost RPT Website

Contact Info: Department Chair (919-515-8326)

  1. INTRODUCTION

This rule describes the standards and procedures for reappointment, promotion and tenure (RPT) in the Department of Graphic Design and Industrial Design and is supplemental to and consistent with the college rule and university Academic Tenure Policy.

  1. AREAS OF FACULTY RESPONSIBILITY

Faculty members in the Department of Graphic Design and Industrial 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 Mutual Expectations.

  1. GENERAL STANDARDS

3.1 Scholarship

Consistent with the broad definitions of scholarship identified within university policy and regulations and college rules for reappointment, promotion, and tenure, the Department of Graphic Design and Industrial 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 has not specified an appropriate number of each type of evidence by rank, as some activities may be more extensive than others.  However, the department does expect 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 department finds the following types of performance appropriate for Graphic Design and Industrial Design faculty.

3.1.1   Creative production – Faculty concentrating their efforts in this form of scholarship would be expected to work in areas consistent with their academic preparation and teaching assignments. As most products of this type of scholarship are usually described as fine art,examples of work should be documented in electronic form and typical measures of performance by peers/dissemination include:

  1. Public exhibition of work– Performance quality relates to the number of proposals for inclusion in exhibitions; local/regional/national/international stature of exhibition; invitational/juried format (juror reputation); one person/group show; venue/sponsor; and documented critical reviews.
  2. Reproduction of work in publications or online– Performance quality relates to stature of publication (refereed/non-refereed, local/regional/national/international distribution, area of scholarship); coverage (feature article, documentation of exhibition); and documented critical reviews.
  3. Commissioned/collected works– Performance quality relates to stature of sponsor or collection and scope of work.
  4. Competitions – Performance quality relates to the level of competition (local/regional/national/international); number of works selected/number of entrants; scope of work; and reputation of sponsor.
  5. Panel/juries-  Performance quality relates to invitation of the candidate to serve on professional design panels and juries for competitions and publications in his/her area of expertise; stature of panel/jury and entrants (fellow jurors’ reputations, local/regional/national/international, undergraduate or graduate student/professional); and stature of sponsor (university, association, publication.)
  6. Lectures/invitations to present– Performance quality relates to stature of sponsor and audience (university, association, publication); scope of presentation participation (delivering a paper prepared in addition to visual work, portfolio presentation); and critical reviews.

3.1.2   Professional graphic design and industrial 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 electronic form; publications should be photocopied. Typical measures of performance by peers/dissemination include:

  1. Professional competitions/exhibitions– Performance quality relates to stature of sponsor (local/regional/national/international); number selected/number entered; jurors; reputation; and critical reviews.
  2. 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.
  3. Publication of writing on design– 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). It is likely, given the current state of design writing, that these publications will not be refereed, however, there may be judgments made regarding the level of scholarship represented by various publications within the popular design press.
  4. Client testimony– Performance quality relates to the stature of client; scope of project; and level of critical review of the work by the client (these should not be general letters of recommendation but serious critiques by clients about the candidate’s work in relation to other designers in the field and the real value of the work to the company.) While such testimony may be part of the dossier of the candidate whose scholarship is in professional practice, it cannot serve as the only evidence. Clients should not be contacted without the candidate’s permission.
  5. Panels/juries/editorial boards– Performance quality relates to invitations to the candidate to serve on professional design panels and juries for competitions and publications in his/her area of expertise; stature of panel/jury (local/regional/national/international, undergraduate or graduate/professional, fellow jurors’ reputations); and stature of sponsor (university, association, publication.)
  6. 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.

3.1.3   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 design or design education (this category could include teaching innovation when done in ways that take a research perspective and yield generalizable results for the field). Typical measures of performance by peers and forms of dissemination include:

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. Published work – Performance quality relates to stature of publication, national distribution, area of scholarship, and scope of work (abstract/article.)
  4. Citations – Performance quality relates to frequency with which the candidate’s research work is cited or serves as a platform for another researcher.
  5. 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.
  6. 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 be at least satisfactory in teaching performance.  In addition to the criteria set out in the College of Design RPT Rule, criteria for evaluation of performance in teaching include:

3.2.1 Presentation and interpersonal communication skills through critiquing methods

3.2.2 Knowledge of subject area /currency and responsiveness to the profession

3.2.3 Fair and responsible evaluation of student performance

3.2.4 New course development and curricular innovation within practical, topical and technological topic areas

3.2.5 Service on graduate committees, lecture courses

3.2.6 Student semester evaluations of courses and instruction

3.2.7 Department peer evaluations of instruction and student outcomes (could include classroom observation)

3.2.8 Course syllabi and project briefs

3.2.9 Peer evaluations of candidate contributions to curriculum planning and evaluation

3.2.10 Testimony from alumni (letters solicited by the review committee)

3.3 Service

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.

3.3.1  Service contributions within the university may include, but are not limited to:

  1. Advising or presenting to student groups
  2. Participation at departmental events, e.g., open house, admissions reviews, graduation
  3. Contributions to general well-being of the department, e.g., carrying a fair share of the work load, installation of exhibits
  4. Contributions to the visibility and management of the department, e.g., web consulting, exhibition and project supervision, student competition entries.

3.3.2 Service contributions to the profession may include, but are not limited to:

  1. Service on boards of directors (local/regional/national/international)
  2. Volunteerism on professional projects
  3. Pro-Bono design services not considered under scholarship
  4. Contributions to professional journals that are not reviewed under scholarship
  5. Accreditation or program reviews at other schools
  6. Service on thesis committees at other schools

3.4  Graduated Scale of Performance Evaluation

The Department of Graphic Design and Industrial Design uses a graduated scale in evaluating faculty performance. Levels of performance are as follows:

3.4.1    Less than adequate – The candidate does not show evidence of minimally acceptable performance.  Failure in several of the categories described 3. a., b., c., d., or f. 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.

3.4.2    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.

3.4.3    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.

3.4.4    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.

  1. STANDARDS FOR REAPPOINTMENT AS ASSISTANT PROFESSOR

Reappointment as Assistant Professor requires that the individual is, at least, adequate in teaching, scholarship and service and more than adequate in one and is making satisfactory progress towards meeting the standards for promotion to the rank of Associate Professor with tenure (Section 5).

  1.    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).

  1. 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.

  1. PROCEDURES FOR RPT REVIEW 

7.1    Dossier Content

The materials to be assembled in the dossier for reappointment, promotion, and tenure are specified in NCSU REG05.20.20 – RPT Dossier Format Requirements.

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.

7.3    Decisions

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.