Authority: Provost and Executive Vice Chancellor
History: First Issued: June 1999. Last Revised: January 25, 2008.
NCSU POL05.20.01 – Appointment, Reappointment, Promotion and Permanent Tenure
NCSU RUL05.67.22 – College of Agriculture and Life Sciences Reappointment, Promotion and Tenure Standards and Procedures
NCSU REG05.20.27 – Statements of Mutual Expectations
Office of the Provost RPT Website
Contact Info: Head, Department of Plant Pathology, (919-515-2730)
This rule details the standards used in formulating the recommendations, the responsibilities of each of the participants, and a timeline of events for reappointment, promotion and tenure in the Department of Plant Pathology.
This rule is supplemental to and consistent with NCSU POL05.20.01 – Appointment, Reappointment, Promotion and Permanent Tenure. The award of tenure requires approval of the Board of Trustees.
Hereafter in this rule, “senior faculty” refers to tenured full professors, and “junior faculty” refers to tenured or tenure track assistant professors and tenured or tenure track associate professors.
2. Areas of Faculty Responsibility
Each faculty member in this department has a unique set of responsibilities supporting the mission of the Department, which is to: “Advance knowledge of the plant, the pathogens and the interactions that cause plant diseases, promote environmentally sound strategies to improve plant health in agricultural, urban and other ecosystems, and provide education in plant pathology for students and citizens of North Carolina and the world.” Depending on the faculty member’s assignment, these responsibilities are divided among Teaching, Research, and Extension and Outreach, and the responsibilities are described in detail to each faculty member in the Letter of Appointment. Furthermore, the range and depth of each faculty member’s responsibilities is refined and updated annually according to changes in the academic, research, and outreach environments and described in the Statement of Mutual Expectations, which is reviewed and revised via a collaborative process between the faculty member and the Department Head.
Within the realms of Teaching, Research, and Extension and Outreach, each faculty member is also 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. It is reasonable that such tasks might occupy 10-15% of a faculty member’s time. However, obligations requiring a significant commitment of a faculty member’s time should be reviewed together with the Department Head. to resolve any possible conflicts of commitment.
3. General Standards
Each faculty member is expected to achieve professional excellence and peer recognition in at least one area of scholarship, which includes teaching, research, outreach or service and to demonstrate professional competence in the other areas that apply to the individual’s position description. Faculty members are expected to establish programs characterized by quality, depth and high levels of productivity. National and international recognition are important standards, especially for promotion to the rank of Professor. Faculty members are expected to contribute to the intellectual life of their Department, College,
University and profession through professional service. Merit of a faculty member’s program rather than time in rank is the basic standard for all recommendations regarding reappointment, promotion and tenure.
The following standards for the realms of faculty responsibility represented in the department are not in order of priority nor of equal weight. Individual faculty are evaluated on their total program and are expected to achieve at high levels of quality and productivity in most of the standards that are appropriate to their position description.
3.1. Teaching Standards
3.1.1. Quality of teaching as evaluated by student and peer evaluation
3.1.2. Development of innovative teaching materials, e.g publications, videos, computer software, slide sets, etc
3.1.3. Innovation of course content
3.1.4. Participation in teaching symposia and workshops
3.1.5. Honors and Awards
3.1.6. Advising of undergraduate and graduate students
3.1.7. Evaluation of overall contributions to the education of students as evaluated by exit interviews
3.1.8. Efforts and success with proposals for extramural funding
3.2. Research Standards
3.2.1. Quality and quantity of peer reviewed publications including journal articles, book chapters, books, monographs and computer software
3.2.2. Significance of research contributions to the discipline
3.2.3. Development of innovative theories, techniques and technologies
3.2.4. Invited and submitted presentations at symposia and professional meetings
3.2.5. Honors, awards and consultancies
3.2.6. Efforts and success with proposals for extramural funding
3.2.7. Training and placement of graduate students and post-doctoral associates
3.3. Extension and Outreach Standards
3.3.1. Identification of constituent needs
3.3.2. Application of research program to address needs
3.3.3. Contribution of applied research to resolving needs
3.3.4. Quantity and quality of publications and training aids
3.3.5. Innovation of applied research programs
3.3.6. Demonstration projects
3.3.7. Participation in symposia and conferences
3.3.8. Participation in agent training
3.3.9. Honors and awards
3.3.10. Efforts and success with proposals for extramural funding
3.4. Departmental, College and University Service
3.4.1. Committee service
3.4.2. Committee leadership
3.4.3. Elected offices in College and University Organizations
3.4.4. Contributions to community development within the Department
3.5. Professional and Public Service
3.5.1. Election to offices in local, national and international scientific societies and professional organizations
3.5.2. Committee service for scientific and professional organizations
3.5.3. Service in reviewing grants or programs
3.5.4. Service as editor or on editorial boards for journals and books
3.5.5. Advisory service to public and governmental organizations
3.5.6. Organization and leadership of scientific meetings, symposia and workshops
3.5.7. Presentations to public schools and organizations
4. Standards for Reappointment as Assistant Professor
Faculty reappointed to the rank of Assistant Professor will have earned a doctoral degree in Plant Pathology or discipline relevant to their areas of responsibility and will have demonstrated potential to be able to conceive, conduct and manage a scholarly program in teaching, research and or extension.
5. Standards for Associate Professor with Tenure
In order to be promoted to the rank of Associate Professor with tenure, a faculty member must first meet the standards listed above for reappointment as an Assistant Professor. Furthermore, the individual will have demonstrated recognized ability to achieve distinction in research, teaching and extension commensurate with their Statement of Mutual Expectations. Also, the individual should have demonstrated the ability to manage or direct activities in these areas. In addition, the individual should have shown a willingness to participate in activities at the departmental, college and/or university level that contributes to the well being of the institution.
6. Standards for Professor
To merit promotion to the rank of Professor, an individual faculty member will have met the standards described above for promotion to Associate Professor with tenure. Furthermore, the individual will have demonstrated a proven record of distinguished achievement in teaching, research and extension commensurate with their Statement of Mutual Expectations. The requisite level of achievement will be evidenced by national and international recognition from peers working within the individual’s area of scholarly activity.
7.1. Evaluation and review
Evaluation and review is an ongoing process that, with the implementation of comprehensive review of tenured faculty, will continue throughout one’s professional career. Departmental participants in the review process consist of the Department Head, departmental voting faculty, mentor, and the departmental Reappointment, Promotion and Tenure committee. The Department Head is responsible for the integrity of the process and forwards his or her recommendation along with the recommendation that of the departmental voting faculty and the documentation provided by the candidate to the Dean for the next level of review.
7.2. Departmental Voting Faculty
Departmental Voting Faculty (DVF) are defined by NCSU POL05.20.01 – Appointment, Reappointment, Promotion and Permanent Tenure. USDA faculty will continue to be included in deliberations consistent with rank held and policies of the college and university, but their vote is not counted in the DVF.
Each newly appointed faculty member will be assigned a senior faculty member as a temporary mentor, with the expectation that the new faculty member will have selected a permanent mentor by the end of his or her first year in residence. The role of the mentor is to provide guidance for professional development and to serve as the faculty member’s advocate during the processes of reappointment, promotion and tenure.
7.4. Departmental Reappointment, Promotion and Tenure Committee
The Departmental Reappointment, Promotion and Tenure Committee will consist of three Full Professors elected by the faculty to serve rotating, 3-year terms. The chair will be appointed by the Department Head and will lead discussions of each case at the Fall meeting when formal recommendations are made. The faculty will serve 2-, 3- or 4-year terms when the committee is initiated. The charge of the committee is to oversee the Reappointment, Promotion and Tenure process. The goal is to provide an element of fairness and uniformity among the reviews and to ensure that documentation is of the highest quality and that it accurately reflects the accomplishments of the faculty member. In addition, the committee serves as a resource of information during the meeting of tenured faculty to develop the recommendation. The role of the committee is distinct from that of the mentor in that while the mentor is the candidate’s advocate, the committee is there to insure an impartial, substantive analysis of the faculty member’s accomplishments.
The Department Head should rely on the committee to provide specific information needed to prepare a recommendation. An example of instances where the committee would provide a valuable service would be in the unfortunate instance of a split (vote) recommendation, the committee may be asked to provide a ‘minority’ recommendation.
7.5. Time Schedule
7.5.1. Spring meeting. The tenured faculty will meet annually during spring semester (prior to April 1) to informally review the progress of each non-tenured faculty member towards reappointment, promotion and tenure. The review will consist of the appointee submitting an updated curriculum vita in dossier format for the initial review by faculty, which junior faculty members should strive to maintain in the Department’s administrative offices throughout their initial term of appointment. The mentor of each non-tenured faculty member will summarize the individual’s progress in detail during this meeting. When satisfactory progress is being made, the individual’s mentor will report substance of the discussion to him or her. Concerns raised by faculty which could jeopardize reappointment or promotion and conferral of tenure should be communicated to the faculty member by the Department Head and the mentor. In addition, special consideration will be given to those faculty members who must be considered for reappointment or tenure during the coming year. All Associate Professors that wish to be considered for promotion to Full Professor will provide a current curriculum vita in dossier format for review by the senior faculty. The Department Head will use this discussion when counseling faculty who wish to be considered for promotion to Full Professor.
7.5.2. By June 1. The Department Head will have met with each faculty member to be considered for reappointment or tenure and promotion to Associate Professor by June 1 to officially inform the individual that they are to be considered that year. The Department Head will also have met with any other EHRA faculty to be considered for promotion, tenure or reappointment at the fall meeting (e.g., non-tenured Associate Professors to be considered for tenure; promotion from Associate to Full or any other matters pertaining to Special Faculty that must be considered during the regularly scheduled tenure and promotion process). In addition, the Department Head will remind the faculty member of important deadlines for completion of documentation for the recommendation process. The faculty member should meet with the mentor to specifically discuss the preparation of credentials. Credentials consist of the information requested in the dossier. Most faculty, especially those with significant academic responsibilities, will be advised to also prepare a teaching portfolio as an addendum to the dossier form to adequately document academic accomplishments.
7.5.3. By July 1. The faculty member and mentor should meet with the Reappointment, Promotion and Tenure committee to coordinate subsequent activities. The first meeting should be a general discussion of the process and the faculty member and mentor should provide the committee a list of external evaluators (at least six). The committee will communicate to the Department Head at least 10 names of external evaluators along with a brief curriculum vita of each external evaluator, as required by the university. Also, in advance of providing this list of external evaluators, the faculty member’s mentor should have met with the candidate to review the candidate’s supporting documentation.
7.5.4. By September 1. The Department Head, in consultation with the committee, will select six external evaluators from the list and solicit references from them by September 1. The solicitation will consist of a request for the letter of evaluation accompanied by the candidate’s complete curriculum vita in dossier format. Letters should be requested for receipt by September 20.
7.5.5. By October 15. All faculty members being considered for reappointment, tenure and or promotion will present a seminar to the department by October 15. Each candidate’s dossier, complete with all supporting documentation, should be available in the departmental office for review no less than two weeks prior to the Fall meeting of the faculty to make recommendations, which is scheduled circa November 1.
7.6. RPT Dossier
When formatting the curriculum vita and supporting documentation according to the dossier guidelines, special attention should be given that manuscripts “in preparation” or “submitted” should be treated as prescribed. Specifically, manuscripts accepted for publication must have a copy of the letter of acceptance on file in the departmental office and attached to copies of the manuscript. Any manuscripts accepted during the review and recommendation process may be added in accordance with guidelines. Copies of all published works (including those that are “in press”) should be available for examination as a supplement to the dossier.