RUL 05.67.19 – Department of Microbiology Reappointment, Promotion and Tenure Standards and Procedures

Authority: Executive Vice Chancellor and Provost

History: First Issued: November 1997.  Last Revised: October 22, 2004.

Related Policies: 
NCSU POL 05.20.01 – Appointment, Reappointment, Promotion and Permanent Tenure
NCSU RUL05.67.22 – College of Agriculture and Life Sciences Reappointment, Promotion and Tenure Standards and Procedures
NCSU REG05.20.19 – Realms of Faculty Responsibility
NCSU REG05.20.27 – Statements of Mutual Expectations
Glassick Standards

Additional References: 
Office of the Provost RPT Website
Options for Review in Departments Impacted by the Creation of the College of Sciences

 

Contact Info:  Department Head, Department Microbiology (919-515-2391)

Please Note:
For 2013-14 and 2014-15, faculty members whose departments were impacted by the creation of the College of Sciences have the option to be reviewed for reappointment, promotion and tenure or for post-tenure review using the Rule for Reappointment, Promotion and Tenure Standards and Procedures or the Rule for Post-Tenure Review Standard and Procedures of their previous academic departments.  For more information about whether faculty reviews in your department are affected by the creation of the new college, please contact the Dean’s Office in the College of Agriculture and Life Sciences or the College of Sciences.

1. Introduction

The Department of Microbiology is committed to advancing the practice and understanding of microbiology in the context of an environmentally conscious and ever more technological society.  This commitment is manifested in an integrated program of research and teaching that fosters interactions between students, faculty, alumni, and industry. These commitments will be the basis for key departmental decisions and for the recruitment, development, assessment, and retention of faculty as they contribute to achieving these goals.

This rule delineates and directs departmental standards and procedures for faculty reappointment, promotion, tenure, and review.  It is supplemental to and consistent with NCSU POL 05.20.01 – Appointment, Reappointment, Promotion and Permanent Tenure.  The Board of Trustees holds the authority for tenure approval.

2.   Areas of Faculty Responsibility

The Department of Microbiology supports the Realms of Faculty Responsibility as listed in NCSU REG05.20.19 – Realms of Faculty Responsibility. In the department, the major areas of faculty responsibility are Teaching and Mentoring; Research; Department, College and University Service; and Professional/Public Service. Each faculty member’s responsibilities are identified in the offer letter and further documented in the Statement of Mutual Expectations.

Scholarly activity, appropriate to the discipline and responsibilities, is expected of all faculty, including untenured faculty members, and will be used to assess contributions made by an individual. Scholarly activity is defined broadly when considering the work of academicians at institutions of higher learning, and is most often captured in the concept of creating new knowledge and transferring knowledge to others.

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.  Departmental, College and University Service

3.3.1.   Committee service

3.3.2.   Committee leadership

3.3.3.   Elected offices in College and University Organizations

3.3.4.   Contributions to community development within the Department

3.4.  Professional and Public Service

3.4.1.   Election to offices in local, national and international scientific societies and professional organizations

3.4.2.   Committee service for scientific and professional organizations

3.4.3.   Service in reviewing grants or programs

3.4.4.   Service as editor or on editorial boards for journals and books

3.4.5.   Advisory service to public and governmental organizations

3.4.6.   Organization and leadership of scientific meetings, symposia and workshops

3.4.7.   Presentations to public schools and organizations

4.   Standards for Reappointment as Assistant Professor

The following standards will be applied in decisions for reappointment as Assistant Professor.

4.1. Evidence of excellence in teaching, as demonstrated by: (1) student evaluations; (2) peer review of teaching

4.2. Evidence that significant scholarly activity is in progress, as demonstrated by: (1). presentations at professional meetings; (2) published work and manuscripts of work in progress; (3) submission and funding of grants for research; and  (4) mentoring of graduate students. It is expected that the candidate will have at least one publication at the time of reappointment.

4.3. Evidence of willingness and ability to work with colleagues, and participation in Department, College and University activities.  Examples of this may include; (1) participation in curriculum development and departmental activities; (2) advising undergraduate and graduate students; and (3) serving on departmental, College or University committees.

5. Standards for Promotion to Associate Professor with Tenure

For consideration for promotion from Assistant Professor to tenured Associate Professor, a faculty member should have met the following standards.

5.1. Normally the faculty member should have received the Ph.D. at least 7 years before consideration and should have been an Assistant Professor for at least 5 years.

5.2. The faculty member must show evidence of continuous satisfactory performance and professional growth. The faculty member must have a national reputation as a scholar and independent investigator.

5.3. The faculty member should have at least 10 (at least 5 of the 10 papers to be completed at NC State) original papers, in national and/or international journals, for which he/she was a major/senior intellectual contributor. Appropriate credit will be given also to multiple authored publications, books, chapters, and reviews.

5.4. The faculty member should have developed a sustained, productive research program that has been supported by peer-reviewed granting agencies. Normally, this will require 3 years of substantial support and successful competition for 1-2 extramural grants and/or contracts as the principal or co-principal investigator.

5.5. The faculty member should have been a satisfactory teacher and shown leadership in the formal instruction of graduate students.

5.6. The faculty member should have cooperated effectively with fellow faculty members and exhibited leadership in developing cooperative ventures in teaching, research, or both.

5.7. The faculty member has supervised at least 2 research trainees; that is, graduate students through the M.S. and/or the Ph.D. program.

5.8. The faculty member has served effectively in advising and counseling of graduate and undergraduate students.

5.9. The faculty member has served effectively and demonstrated leadership on departmental and institutional committees.

6. Standards for Promotion from Associate Professor to Professor

For consideration for promotion from Associate Professor to full Professor, a faculty member should have met the following standards.

6.1. Normally the faculty member should have received the Ph.D. at least 12 years before consideration and should have been an Associate Professor for at least 5 years.

6.2. The faculty member must show evidence of continuous satisfactory performance and professional growth. The faculty member must have a national or international reputation as a scholar and independent investigator.

6.3. The faculty member should have at least 25 original papers, in national and/or international journals, for which he/she was a major/senior intellectual contributor. Appropriate credit will be given also to multiple authored publications, books, chapters, and reviews.

6.4. The faculty member should have developed a sustained, productive research program that has been supported by peer-reviewed granting agencies. Normally, this will require 6 years of substantial support and successful competition for 3-4 extramural grants and/or contracts as the principal or co-principal investigator.

6.5. The faculty member should have been a satisfactory teacher and shown leadership in the formal instruction of graduate students.

6.6. The faculty member should have cooperated effectively with fellow faculty members and exhibited leadership in developing cooperative ventures in teaching, research, or both.

6.7. The faculty member should have supervised at least 4 research trainees; that is, graduate students through the M.S. and/or the Ph.D. (at least 2 Ph.D.s) program, and 1 postdoctoral research associate for 2 years.

6.8. The faculty member has served effectively in advising and counseling of graduate and undergraduate students.

6.9. The faculty member should have served effectively and demonstrated leadership on departmental and institutional committees or advisory groups.

6.10. The faculty member should have demonstrated concern for the profession through service on national or international committees, or as an officer of a national or international scientific organization, and/or other comparable national level services (e.g., editorial boards or grant review panels).

7. Procedures for RPT Review 

The following departmental guidelines will be followed in all faculty reviews, as well as reappointment, promotion and tenure reviews.

7.1. Faculty are responsible for being knowledgeable about the department reappointment, promotion and tenure rule, as well as the College and University-related processes.  Each faculty member is encouraged to maintain systematic records and support documentation on an ongoing basis, following the University dossier format.

7.2. During the academic year prior to the final academic year of the appointment, first term assistant professors will undergo a comprehensive evaluation by the voting faculty (the tenured full and associate professors of the Department) in consideration for a second appointment as assistant professor.

7.3.  During the spring semester of each year, the department head will issue a memorandum requesting submission for review of current academic year faculty activity reports.  The department head will meet with all faculty to discuss their progress reports and provide feedback.  At that time, faculty who are up for mandatory consideration for promotion, tenure, or both, would be informed and asked to prepare their dossier.

7.4. Each fall, the department head will be responsible for establishing deadlines, in accordance with University stated timelines, for submission and review of materials and for a meeting of the Department Voting Faculty (DVF) for discussion and voting on each reappointment, promotion, and tenure case. Promotion and retention panels will include appropriately ranked tenured faculty for the particular review process. Tenured full professors will review faculty who are at the associate rank.  Tenured full and tenured associate professors will review faculty who are at the assistant rank level.

7.5.  The constituted DVF will conduct their assessments, discussions, and voting on each candidate.  Members of the DVF shall not reveal the statements and positions of the other DVF members or the votes of the DVF to anyone who is not a DVF member. The review and assessment process will be based upon current University policies and regulations, and college and department rules.  All Department Voting Faculty are expected to be present at the discussion and vote at the meeting unless there are extreme circumstances which would warrant a faculty member’s absence.  DVF members who are unable to be present at this meeting will be expected to review each candidate’s credentials and to submit their vote for each candidate to the department head.

7.6.  One member of the DVF will be assigned primary responsibility for developing a departmental written assessment of the candidate for reappointment, promotion or tenure consideration.  The presenter will be selected by the department head on the basis of familiarity with the candidate’s professional work whenever possible. The written assessment will present the department voting faculty’s key findings and evidence of the candidates’ accomplishment in relation to the department, College, and University guidelines.  If there is a split vote of DVF, it is the responsibility of the presenter to discuss both perspectives in the written assessment.  This individual will consult with other members of the DVF to verify that the written assessment accurately reflects the discussions and voting of the DVF.

7.7.  The faculty assessment will be forwarded to the department head by the department specified date.  The written assessment by the DVF will include a list of the members of DVF.