RUL 05.67.400 - Department of Communication Reappointment, Promotion and Tenure Standards and Procedures

RUL 05.67.400 – Department of Communication Reappointment, Promotion and Tenure Standards and Procedures

Authority: Executive Vice Chancellor and Provost

History: First Issued: September 12, 2001. Last Revised: November 25, 2025.

Additional References:
Office of the Provost RPT Website

Contact Info: Department of Communication, (919-515-9736)

1. INTRODUCTION

1.1 The object of tenure rules within the Department of Communication is to recognize colleagues who have achieved sufficient distinction in their realms of faculty responsibility – and who show promise of continuing to demonstrate distinction – to merit a promotion to a tenured position in the Department.

1.2 Faculty activities are affected by policy and budgets and staffing. Conditions at the university should be taken into consideration when reviewing candidates for reappointment, promotion, and tenure. Faculty duties and responsibilities articulated in the faculty member’s contract and Statement of Faculty Responsibilities (SFR) should be taken into consideration in assessing the candidate’s dossier. The numbers used in this rule are purely illustrative in nature. Nothing in this rule is retroactive although a candidate may request to be considered under a more recent version of the rule than the one under which they were hired.

1.3 The Appointment, Reappointment, Promotion and Permanent Tenure Policy is described in full at NCSU POL05.20.01 – Appointment, Reappointment, Promotion and Permanent Tenure

1.4 The standards and procedures of the Department are fully consistent with those of the College of Humanities and Social Sciences and North Carolina State University. Final approval for tenure rests with the university’s Board of Trustees.

2. REALMS OF FACULTY RESPONSIBILITY

2.1 There are six realms in which distinction may be shown: (1) teaching and mentoring of undergraduate and graduate students (teaching), (2) discovery of knowledge through discipline-guided inquiry (research), (3) creative artistry and literature (creative artistry), (4) technological and managerial innovation, (5) service to professional societies and the discipline and service and engagement within the university itself (service), and (6) extension and engagement with constituencies outside the university (extension and engagement).

3. GENERAL STANDARDS

The general standards upon which appointment, reappointment, promotion, and conferral of tenure are to be recommended include an assessment of at least the following: demonstrated professional competence in the appropriate mix of the realms of responsibility as defined by this rule and agreed upon in each faculty member’s SFR; potential for future contributions; and service to the university, the academic community, and society. The individual’s contributions shall be considered in a manner that is appropriate to each individual appointment, and recommendations shall be consistent with the needs and resources of the university.

3.1 Standards for Research and Technological and Managerial Innovation

3.1.1 All candidates are expected to demonstrate scholarly work through research or technological and managerial innovation. A candidate’s scholarship shall be evaluated by (a) the quality of its theoretical, methodological, or applied contribution; (b) the quality of its publication outlet; and (c) the candidate’s degree of contribution to the publication.

3.1.2 Quality of theoretical, methodological, or applied contribution. In assessing quality of contribution, priority shall be awarded to publications in the candidate’s primary field as identified in their SFR. Quality of contribution can be evidenced by:

3.1.2.1 The importance of work to the communication discipline and beyond.

3.1.2.2 Input from external reviewers.

3.1.2.3 Citation records.

3.1.2.4 Departmental, college, university or professional awards.

3.1.2.5 Published reviews in print or online.

3.1.2.6 A sustainable, programmatic line of research.

3.1.2.7 The coherence of the research agenda.

3.1.2.8 Quality measures specific to the culture of scholarly inquiry (as defined in the SFR).

3.1.3 Quality of publication outlet can be evidenced by:

3.1.3.1 Peer review status. Refereed works will usually be given more weight than other publications. In cases of non-peer reviewed invited publication(s), the case for “significance of the contribution” and the publication shall be made by the candidate.

3.1.3.2 Journal acceptance/rejection rates or press acceptance/rejection rates.

3.1.3.3 Impact ratings.

3.1.4 Degree of contribution to the publication. In general, single-authored and first-authored books and articles will be given more weight than those that are multiple-authored. In some circumstances, multiple authored works may carry more significance than single authored work; that determination needs to be made on a case-by-case basis. In all cases, the candidate shall identify their contributions to:

3.1.4.1 Study conception and design

3.1.4.2 Acquisition of data

3.1.4.3 Analysis and interpretation of data

3.1.4.4 Drafting of manuscript

3.1.4.5 Critical revision

3.1.5 For non-refereed works directed at public audiences, the candidate is responsible for: (1) negotiating these publications as an acceptable form of scholarship in the SFR, and (2) providing quality measures commensurate to those for traditional publications. Quality can be evidenced by:

3.1.5.1 Number of visits (“hits”) to website.

3.1.5.2 Reviews and bookmarking.

3.1.5.3 Citation and links.

3.1.5.4 Volume, circulation, etc.

3.1.5.5 Ownership disclosure.

3.1.5.6 Third party seals.

3.1.5.7 General history of the publication outlet.

3.1.6 Formative research activity is not the same as published scholarship, nor does it substitute for published scholarship. Formative research activity is expected as a means of developing scholarly contributions and professional identity. Formative research activity can include: grant submissions and reviews, creating and sustaining a new journal in the field, conference papers and poster presentations, book contracts, and significant invited presentations. Formative research activity, as defined in the candidate’s Statement of Faculty Responsibilities, is important as an indication of progress toward significant scholarly work for promotion and tenure.

3.2 Standards for Teaching

3.2.1 All candidates are expected to demonstrate excellent to outstanding teaching.

3.2.2 Quality of teaching shall be evidenced by:

3.2.1.1 A summary of annual student evaluations for all academic years.

3.2.1.2 Peer evaluations of syllabi and classroom teaching.

3.2.3 In addition, quality of teaching can be evidenced by:

3.2.3.1 Teaching awards.

3.2.3.2 Chairing or serving on graduate committees.

3.2.3.3 Directing theses and dissertations.

3.2.3.4 Mentoring students.

3.2.3.5 Facilitating undergraduate scholarship (e.g., honors projects, undergraduate research symposia, undergraduate research presentations, co-authorship with students, etc.).

3.2.3.6 Facilitating graduate scholarship (e.g., graduate research symposia, conference. presentations, co-authorship with students, directed readings courses, independent studies, etc.).

3.2.3.7 Facilitating the creation and impact of curricular innovations, new course development, and other significant pedagogical contributions to teaching and mentoring including but not limited to creating and managing an educational laboratory.

3.2.3.8 Excellence in student performance.

3.3 Standards for Service

3.3.1 All candidates are expected to demonstrate exemplary departmental citizenship. This is demonstrated by a candidate’s willingness and ability to work with colleagues and participate in the department, college and/or university activities.

3.3.2 Quality of service can be evidenced by:

3.3.2.1 Leadership roles in department, college, university or extension.

3.3.2.2 Department, college, university or extension administrative work.

3.3.2.3 Student academic advising.

3.3.2.4 Mentoring faculty.

3.3.2.5 Appointments and elected offices in professional and service organizations.

3.3.2.6 Developing, funding, incorporating, and managing professional associations.

3.3.2.7 Significant committee work (evidence on the contribution should be submitted in the file).

3.3.2.8 Editorial and publication responsibilities (candidates should submit extent and degree of participation).

3.3.2.9 Activity as reviewer (e.g. for journals, grants, monographs, professional associations or as an external reviewer for a promotion and tenure file).

3.3.2.10 Intellectual and/or technology transfer.

3.4 Standards for Extension and Engagement

Candidates are expected to demonstrate activities in extension and engagement as specified in their SFR. NC State University defines extension and engagement as “an ongoing two-way interchange of knowledge, information, understanding, and services between the university and the state, nation, and world” (NCSU REG 05.20.27). A candidate’s extension and engagement activities shall be evaluated by the following criteria:

a. the clarity of the goals for impact for the community and the engaged scholar;

b. the use of appropriate methods for engaging the community;

c. the significance of impacts on the community and the engaged scholar; and

d. the extent of the candidate’s leadership and personal contributions.

3.4.1 Documentation of Extension and Engagement Activities specified in the SFR. Candidates whose SFR requires them to engage in extension and engagement activities should include in their dossier a statement describing their activities and documenting their merits on the criteria specified in this section.

3.4.2 Extension and Engagement activities not specified in the SFR. In the Department of Communication, extension and engagement activities are frequently integrated into a candidate’s Research, Creative Artistry, Teaching, and/or Service, although no responsibilities are specified in their SFR. In such cases, the candidate may choose to document their extension and engagement activities exclusively in the Research, Teaching, Creative Artistry and/or Service sections of their dossiers. The principles of evaluation defined in this section shall be incorporated when assessing the engaged aspects of the candidate’s work in that other realm of responsibility.

3.4.2.1 “Community” in these standards refers inclusively to any constituency outside the university, whether at the local, state, national or international level; it need not be a community of place. The candidate should identify the community with which they are engaging.

3.4.2.2 Clear Goals for Impact for the Community and the Engaged Scholar. The candidate should clearly define the immediate outcomes and longer-term objectives of extension and engagement activities. Clarity of purpose provides a critical context for evaluating engaged work. Evidence of clear goals includes, for example, defining objectives and outcomes that are significant to the community and the engaged scholar and achievable.

3.4.2.3 Appropriate Methods for Engaging the Community. The candidate should demonstrate intentionality in adopting contextually appropriate methods for extension and engagement grounded in the Communication field. Evidence of appropriate methods includes, for example: investing time and effort in developing community partnerships; collaborating with community members in all phases of the project; partnering with extension and engagement professionals; thoughtful selection and application of techniques documented in the Communication field for extension and engagement.

3.4.2.4 Significance of Impact on the Community and the Engaged Scholar. The candidate should evaluate whether or not they achieved their goals and whether or not this achievement had an important impact on themselves and others. “Significance” is intended to be broadly defined and not refer only to “statistical significance.” Evidence of impact is likely to be varied, but should in all cases be relevant to the project goals and document the nature, breadth and depth of effects on the community and the engaged scholar.

3.4.2.5 Leadership and Personal Contribution. Collaboration is a common practice in extension and engagement activities. In cases of collaborative activities, the candidate is responsible for clarifying the nature, extent and importance of their personal contributions. Evidence of personal contribution includes, for example, clearly articulating the candidate’s and collaborators’ roles at each stage of the project; documenting awards or other signs of recognition given the candidate for their extension and engagement activities.

3.5 Standards for Creative Artistry

3.5.1 Candidates are expected to demonstrate creative artistry as specified in their SFR. NC State University defines creative artistry as “the creation, production, interpretation, and evaluation of cultural artifacts that generate new insights and interpretations with the potential to inspire and advance the quality of life in society.” (NCSU REG 05.20.27). A candidate’s creative artistry shall be evaluated by the following criteria:

a. the relevance and contribution of the project(s) to the field;

b. the quality of the project(s);

c. the social and cultural contributions of the project(s);

d. the extent of the candidate’s leadership and personal contributions to the project(s).

3.5.2 Documentation of Creative Artistry Specified in the SFR. Candidates whose SFR requires them to engage in creative artistry should include in their dossier a statement describing each creative artistry project and documenting its merits on the criteria specified in this section. In general, the candidate should include only completed phases of creative artistry projects. Formative or developmental activities such as seeking funds and preparing conceptual outlines are important as indicators of progress toward significant creative artistry for promotion and tenure, but do not substitute for completed project phases.

3.5.3 Creative Artistry Not Specified in the SFR. In the Department of Communication, creative artistry is frequently integrated into a candidate’s Research, Teaching, and/or Service, although no responsibilities are specified in their SFR. In such cases, the candidate may choose to document their creative artistry activities exclusively in the Research, Teaching, and/or Service sections of their dossiers. The principles of evaluation defined in this section shall be incorporated when assessing the creative artistry aspects of the candidate’s work in that other realm of responsibility.

3.5.4 Evidence of Quality of Creative Artistry

3.5.4.1 Relevance and Contribution to the Field. The candidate should articulate their creative artistry with the principles, theories and methods of the Communication field. Evidence of relevance to the field includes, for example, shaping contemporary critical discourse and/or practice in the field and the way the project represents innovative approaches within the field, or is part of an ongoing inquiry relevant to the field.

3.5.4.2 Quality. The candidate should demonstrate that the creative artistry project has been judged to be of high quality by experts whose appropriateness is justified by the candidate in their dossier. Evidence of quality includes, for example, positive critical reviews, periodical references, competitive awards, acceptance for presentation or exhibition, and competitive funding. Securing commissions or invitations to perform creative artistic activities may sometimes be informative of project quality. In these cases, the quality of the project will be assessed through the competitiveness of the selection process, the prominence of the commission or invitation, or the reputation of the client.

3.5.4.3 Social and Cultural Contributions. The candidate’s creative artistry should make a difference in the world by having an impact on the public understanding of communication, by illuminating issues, or by developing innovations or tools appropriate to the field of Communication. Evidence of significance includes, for example, project exhibition or availability; audience reach and impacts; media attention; reproduction or preservation; or influence on other creative or scholarly works.

3.5.4.4 Leadership and Personal Contribution. Collaboration and shared authorship are common practices in the creative arts. In cases of collaborative activities, the candidate is responsible for clarifying the nature, extent and importance of their personal contributions. Evidence of personal contribution includes, for example, clearly articulating the candidate’s and any collaborators’ roles at each stage of the project and identifying the specific ideas contributed and tasks performed by the candidate.

4. STANDARDS FOR REAPPOINTMENT AS ASSISTANT PROFESSOR

4.1 Standards for Research and Technological and Managerial Innovation

4.1.1 Candidates for reappointment shall provide evidence of continued scholarly publication. Evidence of scholarly work shall be demonstrated by both the quality and quantity of publication through published scholarly articles in refereed journals or comparable quality refereed book chapters. The substantial nature of a scholarly work can be demonstrated by quality standards as indicated in section 3.1. The significance of a program of research typically involves the publication of a number of articles or book chapters (e.g., 2-3 quality publications as specified in section 3.1.4). Non-refereed publications are relevant to the evaluation of a candidate’s scholarship as explained in section 3.1.5.

The candidate’s SFR should be used as a guide in evaluating the number of publications and the outlets for publication.

4.1.2 Technological and managerial innovation is made relevant to evaluation by a particular candidate’s SFR. Evaluation shall be documented (such as copies of patents, etc.) as featured in the annual reports.

4.2. Standards for Teaching

4.2.1 The candidate shall demonstrate excellence in teaching and present a record of teaching activities that have been evaluated annually as excellent to outstanding. See section 3.2 for

standards for assessing teaching.

4.3 Standards for Service

4.3.1 Candidates for reappointment are expected to engage in limited service. Untenured faculty members are expected to perform some committee work, but the department emphasizes that the priorities are teaching and research. The normal service load is one or two standing committees, with additional short-term committee work (e.g., search committees) occasionally assigned. Untenured faculty shall communicate with the department head if service demands seem excessive. See section 3.3 for standards for assessing service.

4.4 Standards for Extension and Engagement

4.4.1 Candidates for reappointment are expected to show promise of excellence in the extension and engagement activities specified in their SFR. See section 3.4 for standards for assessing extension and engagement.

4.5 Standards for Creative Artistry

4.5.1 Candidates for reappointment are expected to show promise of excellence in the creative artistry activities specified in their SFR. See section 3.5 for standards for assessing creative artistry.

5. STANDARDS FOR ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR WITH TENURE

5.1 Standards for Research and Technological and Managerial Innovation

5.1.1 Candidates for associate professor shall provide evidence of ongoing scholarly contributions in the field beyond those already made at the time of appointment. Evidence of scholarly work shall be demonstrated by both the quality and quantity of publication through published scholarly articles in refereed journals or comparable quality refereed book chapters. The substantial nature of a scholarly work can be demonstrated by quality standards as indicated in section 3.1. The significance of an ongoing program of research is typically reflected by the publication of a number of articles or book chapters (e.g., 6-8 quality publications as specified in section 3.1.4). Non-refereed publications are relevant to the evaluation of a candidate’s scholarship as explained in section 3.1.5.

5.1.2 An assistant professor’s research focus should be on publication. However, because grant writing is considered a formative research activity, it can be considered an indication of progress toward significant scholarly work for promotion and tenure. The pursuit of external grant funding as a primary or secondary investigator should be negotiated as part of the candidate’s SFR.

5.1.3 Regarding internal and external funding (grants), upon award, candidates shall indicate whether they are principal investigator or project director, co-principal investigator, investigator, or participant as well as how much of their time has been allocated to the grant. The candidate should also provide additional information on awards rates, the scope and scale of the research, and the reputation of the awarding organization or agency.

5.1.4 Technological and managerial innovation is made relevant to evaluation by a particular candidate’s SFR. Evaluation shall be documented (such as copies of patents, etc.) as featured in the annual reports.

5.2 Standards for Teaching

5.2.1 The candidate shall demonstrate excellence in teaching and present a record of teaching activities that have been evaluated annually as excellent to outstanding. See section 3.2 for standards for assessing teaching.

5.3 Standards for Service

5.3.1 Candidates for associate professor are expected to engage in limited service work. Untenured faculty members are expected to perform some committee work, but the department emphasizes that the priorities are teaching and research. The normal service load is one or two standing committees, with additional short-term committee work (e.g., search committees) occasionally assigned. Untenured faculty shall communicate with the department head if service demands seem excessive. See section 3.3 for standards for assessing service.

5.4 Standards for Extension and Engagement

5.4.1 Candidates for associate professor with tenure are expected to have achieved excellence in the extension and engagement activities specified in their SFR. See section 3.4 for standards for assessing extension and engagement.

5.5 Standards for Creative Artistry

5.5.1 Candidates for associate professor with tenure are expected to have achieved excellence in the creative artistry activities specified in their SFR. See section 3.5 for standards for assessing creative artistry.

6. STANDARDS FOR PROFESSOR

6.1 Standards for Research and Technological and Managerial Innovation

6.1.1 Candidates for professor shall provide evidence of distinguished scholarly contributions at a national or international level beyond those already made at the time of promotion to Associate Professor. Evidence of distinguished scholarly contributions shall be demonstrated by both the quality and quantity of publication through published book(s), scholarly articles in refereed journals or comparable quality refereed book chapters. The substantial nature of a scholarly work can be demonstrated by quality standards as indicated in section 3.1. The significance of a program of research is reflected by the publication of one or more books with a respected press (published or in press) or a comparable body of work consisting of co-authored-book(s), articles in scholarly journals and book chapters with quality as specified in section 3.1.4. Non-refereed publications are relevant to the evaluation of a candidate’s scholarship as explained in section 3.1.5.

6.1.2 Technological and managerial innovation is made relevant to evaluation by a particular candidate’s SFR. Evaluation shall be documented (such as copies of patents, etc.) as featured in the annual reports.

6.2 Standards for Teaching

6.2.1 The candidate for professor shall demonstrate excellence in teaching and present a continued record of teaching activities that have been evaluated annually as excellent. See section 3.2 for standards for assessing teaching.

6.3 Standards for Service

6.3.1 Professors are expected to provide excellent service as leaders in their domains, as evidenced by service work relevant to their expertise. See section 3.3 for standards for assessing service.

6.4 Standards for Extension and Engagement

6.4.1 Extension and engagement activities can be indicators of a candidate’s leadership and contribution to the Communication field. Candidates for professor are expected to achieve national or international distinction for excellence in the extension and engagement activities specified in their SFR. See section 3.4 for standards for assessing extension and engagement.

6.5 Standards for Creative Artistry

6.5.1 Candidates for professor are expected to have achieved national or international distinction for excellence in the creative artistry activities specified in their SFR. See section 3.5 for standards for assessing creative artistry.

7. PROCEDURES FOR RPT REVIEW

7.1 Annual Faculty Evaluation Committee

7.1.1 All faculty are reviewed annually by an Annual Faculty Evaluation Committee (AFEC) consisting of at least three tenured faculty members appointed by the department head. A summary of the AFEC’s evaluation is given to the department head, typically in May. The evaluation is advisory to the department head for the annual performance review the head shall conduct with each faculty member. The AFEC’s summary report may be shared with each faculty member under review, and a copy of the department head’s annual review of untenured faculty shall become part of the faculty member’s permanent personnel file.

7.2 Annual Review Letters

7.2.1 When a faculty member is being considered for reappointment, or promotion and tenure the Department Head will provide the Department Voting Faculty (DVF) with copies of all of the annual review letters for that candidate.

7.3 Early Spring Semester Prior To Review:

7.3.1 Candidates seeking reappointment, promotion and tenure should meet with the department head to review procedures in February or March prior to reappointment, promotion, and tenure.

7.3.2 Assistant professors seeking promotion and tenure will meet with the department head to develop a list of potential external reviewers. The university requires five letters of external review be submitted as part of each candidate’s dossier when seeking promotion and tenure. The purpose of these letters is to supplement the department’s evaluation of the candidate. To select these reviewers, the candidate will first submit five names of possible reviewers to the department head, who will share the list with selected members of the DVF in (or related to) the candidate’s area(s) of expertise. This list shall not include the candidate’s dissertation advisor or consistent scholarly collaborators. Working with the department head, the selected members of the DVF will compose a list of five additional names. Working with the candidate, the department head will select three mutually acceptable reviewers from each list. Letters will be solicited from five of these six proposed external reviewers. The department head will strive to choose a minimum of three reviewers from the field of communication. It is recommended that solicitations take place no later than the end of April prior to review. If potential reviewers decline, the department head will confer with the candidate to select additional reviewers until the target of five is obtained.

7.3.3 Associate professors announce their intentions to seek promotion to professor. Faculty holding the rank of associate professor may confer with the department head concerning intent to seek promotion. If the candidate believes they meet the standards of the department for promotion to professor and wishes to be considered for promotion, the candidate shall announce by letter to the professors in the department their intention to seek promotion in the next fall semester following receipt of the letter. The letter shall be accompanied by at least a complete curriculum vita. The professors may then meet and advise the candidate concerning their progress toward promotion. While the advice of the professors is not binding upon the candidate, it provides a constructive base upon which potential candidates can build successful promotion strategies. Such advice is intended to discourage premature applications.

7.4 Late Spring and Summer Prior to Review

7.4.1 As stated in section 7.3.2: It is recommended that the department head contact potential external reviewers no later than the end of April prior to review.

7.4.2 The candidate for promotion and/or tenure shall submit copies of all publications to be evaluated to the department head, ideally, by the May commencement ceremony prior to review but in any case prior to July 1.

7.4.3 The Department Head sends the candidate’s publications to the external reviewers and requests a letter to arrive by early August but no later than early September.

7.5 Fall Semester

7.5.1 The candidate completes the dossier and makes it available to the DVF. The candidate will work with the Department Head to produce a dossier in compliance with university guidelines. The dossier and publications (plus any relevant supporting materials), shall be made available to the DVF no later than September 15.

7.5.2 The DVF meets and makes its decision no later than October 15.

7.5.3 Faculty members on leave may participate in the process only if they formally indicate in writing that they will do so fully, which means they shall participate in all relevant meetings and review all relevant documents as they would have had they not been on leave.

7.5.4 After careful study of the applicant’s file during the meeting, the DVF determine the merit of the application. At this meeting, chaired by the department head or a designee, a secret ballot vote will be taken by rank and the results tabulated.

7.5.5 A faculty member will be designated by the faculty present to write a statement describing the discussion at the meeting. All major perspectives voiced by the faculty present and voting will be represented in this description. Upon timely completion of this statement, the participating faculty will approve and/or amend the statement and forward it to the department head who will follow university procedure for sharing it with the applicant. Because of the importance of all personnel decisions, the department requires that all missing votes be explicitly described in the DVF letter.

7.5.6 The Department Head’s evaluation of the applicant will be shared with the DVF and candidate in a timely fashion. This may include a meeting between the department head and the Department Voting Faculty, during which the department head shares the evaluation.

7.5.7 By November 1 (or date set by college), the complete dossier and departmental attachments are forwarded to the college.