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: March 5, 2018.

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 NCSU RUL05.67.106 – College of Design RPT Criteria and Procedures, the University Academic Tenure Policy NCSU POL05.20.01 – Appointment, Reappointment, Promotion and Permanent Tenure and NCSU REG 05.20.34 – Non-Tenure Track Faculty Ranks and Appointments.

2.   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, discovery of knowledge through discipline-guided inquiry, creative artistry and literature, technological innovation, 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 REG05.20.27 – Statements of Mutual Expectations.

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 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/or 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 Teaching and Mentoring

It is expected that the faculty member recommended for reappointment, promotion, or tenure at minimum meets expectations 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:

  1. Presentation and interpersonal communication skills through critiquing methods
  2. Knowledge of subject area/currency and responsiveness to the profession
  3. Fair and responsible evaluation of student performance
  4. New course development and curricular innovation within practical, topical and technological topic areas
  5. Service on graduate committees
  6. Student semester evaluations of courses and instruction
  7. Departmental peer evaluations of instruction and student outcomes (could include classroom observation)
  8. Course syllabi and project briefs
  9. Candidate contributions to curriculum planning and evaluation
  10. Testimony from alumni (letters solicited by the review committee)

3.2      Discovery of Knowledge Through Discipline-Guided Inquiry

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, breadth of distribution (regional, national, international), 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 (consultancies, technology transfer, etc.).
  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, named lectureship, workshop, etc.); area of scholarship represented by the venue; and critical reviews.

3.3      Creative Artistry and Literature

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 practical and/or electronic form. Typical measures of performance by peers/dissemination include:

  1. Public exhibition of workPerformance 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 onlinePerformance 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 worksPerformance 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/residenciesPerformance quality relates to stature of sponsor and audience (university, association, publication); scope of participation (delivering a paper prepared in addition to visual work, portfolio presentation); and critical reviews.

3.4      Professional Graphic Design and Industrial Design Practice

Faculty engaging in this form of scholarship would be expected to work in areas consistent with their academic preparation and teaching assignments. Examples of work should be documented in practical and/or electronic form. It is expected that output would exceed mere freelance practice; typical measures of performance by peers/dissemination include:

  1. Professional competitions/exhibitionsPerformance 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 onlinePerformance 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 designPerformance quality relates to stature of publications in which candidate’s writing appears (local/regional/national/international, area of scholarship, peer-reviewed, subscription base, etc.) 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 testimonyPerformance 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 boardsPerformance 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 presentPerformance quality relates to stature of sponsor and audience (community, university, association); scope of presentation participation (delivering a paper, portfolio presentation); and critical reviews.

3.5. Technological Innovation

Technological innovations need be to appropriate to the faculty’s discipline and be documented for publication/dissemination to be considered, including, but not limited to:

  1. United States or international patents
  2. Technological innovation leading to patents
  3. Technological innovation leading to licensing or commercialization

3.6. Extension and Engagement with Constituencies Outside the University

Extension and engagement with constituencies outside of the university need to be appropriate to the faculty’s discipline and to be documented to be considered, including:

  1. Serving on the advisory boards of governments, non-profit organizations, business and companies.
  2. Expanding partnerships with other colleges and universities, including inter- and intra-university grant participation, workshops, symposia, publications and other scholarly activities. May include interdisciplinary activities.
  3. Local engagement: Design recognition, practice and/or leadership that serves the needs of the diverse communities and/or underrepresented social groups in areas that leverage design.
  4. Global engagement: Development of new global opportunities that expand educational or research options that focus on global or cross-cultural awareness of design education.
  5. Meaningful involvement in and contribution to community or charitable organizations which expand or continue the land grant mission of NC State University.

3.7       Service in Professional Societies and Within the University

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 will be considered.

3.7.1 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.

3.7.2  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

4.      GRADUATED SCALE OF PERFORMANCE

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

4.1  Does Not Meet Expectations – The candidate does not show evidence of minimally acceptable performance.  Failure in several of the categories described III. A., B., C., or E. 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.

4.2   Meets Expectations – 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.

4.3   Exceeds Expectations – The candidate exceeds the minimum requirements of the department. Candidate excels in some categories of teaching and contributes to curricular innovation. 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, and 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.

5. STANDARDS FOR REAPPOINTMENT AS ASSISTANT PROFESSOR

Reappointment as Assistant Professor requires that the individual, at least, meets expectations 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 6).

6. STANDARDS FOR ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR WITH TENURE

To be promoted to Associate Professor with tenure, a candidate must meet expectations in teaching and service, while exceeding expectations in the area of scholarship. The Department must be assured that there is a high expectation that the candidate will continue to build their national reputation and potential for international recognition through significant contributions to the field. In general, a faculty member should have demonstrated the ability to achieve the standards to be a full professor (Section 7).

7. STANDARDS FOR PROFESSOR

To be promoted to Professor, a candidate will have met the standards described above for appointment or promotion to Associate Professor with tenure.  Also, the individual will have demonstrated a proven record of distinguished achievement in research with consistent contribution in externally funded projects, teaching, extension and engagement and service commensurate with their Statement of Mutual Expectations. For promotion to Professor, the Department must be assured that the candidate has achieved (or earned) national and/or international recognition for excellence in her/his field of research and that the candidate will maintain this reputation through significant (and regular) contributions to the field.

8. PROCEDURES FOR RPT REVIEW

The Department of Graphic and Industrial Design follows the procedures and schedule as described in the NCSU RUL05.67.106 – College of Design RPT Criteria and Procedures.

8.1. Definition of Departmental Voting Faculty (DVF)

Departmental Voting Faculty are defined in POL 05.20.01 – Appointment, Reappointment, Promotion and Permanent Tenure and NCSU RUL05.67.106 – College of Design RPT Criteria and Procedures.

8.2. Procedures for a Faculty Vote on RPT

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 ballot. In addition, a complete report on the full range of votes cast, including brief specific documentation of the candidate’s strengths and weaknesses, will be submitted. The written assessment will be circulated to, and approved by, the DVF before being entered into the online RPT system.

8.3    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.

8.4    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 NCSU 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 DVF.

8.5    Absentee Voting

Absentee votes may be submitted to the Chair of the DVF by faculty who are unable to attend the DVF meeting. The Chair will ensure 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. The Chair of the DVF will announce the deadline for submission of absentee votes.