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: March 15, 2012.

Related Policies: 
NCSU RUL05.67.411 – College of Humanities and Social Sciences Reappointment, Promotion and Tenure Standards and Procedures
NCSU POL05.20.01 – Appointment, Reappointment, Promotion and Permanent Tenure
NCSU REG05.20.03 – Annual Reviews of Faculty Members
NCSU REG05.20.27 – Statements of Mutual Expectations

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 research, teaching and service—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 Mutual Expectations should be taken into consideration in assessing the candidate’s dossier.  The numbers used in the following document are purely illustrative in nature.  Nothing in this document is retroactive although a candidate may request to be considered under a more recent document than the one under which s/he was 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.  AREAS OF FACULTY RESPONSIBILITY

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

3.  GENERAL STANDARDS

Per NCSU POL05.20.01 – Appointment, Reappointment, Promotion and Permanent Tenure:

“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 (see 5.2) as defined by each academic unit’s Reappointment, Promotion and Tenure Standards and Procedures rule and agreed upon in each faculty member’s Statement of Mutual Expectations (SME); 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, Creative Artistry and Technological Managerial Innovation

3.1.1  All candidates are expected to demonstrate scholarly work through research, creative artistry or technological/managerial innovation.  A candidate’s scholarship will be evaluated by standards of quality that include several factors: quality of theoretical, methodological, or applied contribution of the scholarship; publication outlet; and degree of contribution to the publication.  Quality of scholarship should be evidenced by (but is not limited to):

3.1.1.1  Input from external reviewers.

3.1.1.2  Citation records.

3.1.1.3  Departmental, college, university or professional awards.

3.1.1.4  Published reviews in print or online.

3.1.1.5  Quality measures specific to the culture of scholarly inquiry (as defined in the SME).

3.1.1.6  Advancement of independent scholarship.

3.1.1.7  A sustainable programmatic line of research.

3.1.1.8  The coherence of the research agenda.

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

3.1.2  Quality of publication outlet can be indicated by:

3.1.2.1  Peer review status.  In cases of non-peer reviewed invited publication(s), the case for “significance of the contribution” and the publication must be made by the candidate.

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

3.1.2.3  Impact ratings.

3.1.2.4  Citation files.

3.1.3  Priority will be awarded to publications in the candidate’s primary field as identified in their Statements of Mutual Expectations.  Refereed works will usually be given more weight than other publications and single-authored and first-authored books and articles will be given more weight than those that are multiple-authored.  If research is multiple authored (an article or edited book), the candidate must describe the nature and level of contribution to the research and product.  In some circumstances, multiple authored works may carry more significance than single authored work and that determination needs to be made on a case-by-case basis.

3.1.4  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 SME, and (2) providing quality measures commensurate to those for traditional publications.  Quality measures can include:

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

3.1.4.2  Reviews and bookmarking.

3.1.4.3  Citation and links.

3.1.4.4  Volume, circulation, etc.,

3.1.4.5  Peer review status.

3.1.4.6  Ownership disclosure.

3.1.4.7  Third party seals.

3.1.4.8  General history of the publication outlet.

3.1.5  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, research awards, book contracts, and significant invited presentations.  Formative research activity, as defined in the candidate’s Statement of Mutual Expectations, 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.  A candidate’s teaching will be evaluated by standards of quality established below.  Standards of quality can be evidenced by:

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

3.2.1.2  Annual peer evaluations of syllabi and classroom teaching.

3.2.2  In addition, excellence can be demonstrated by the following:

3.2.2.1  Teaching awards.

3.2.2.2  Chairing or serving on graduate committees.

3.2.2.3  Directing theses and dissertations.

3.2.2.4  Facilitating undergraduate scholarship (e.g., honors projects, undergraduate research symposia, undergraduate research presentations, etc.).

3.2.2.5  Facilitating graduate scholarship (e.g., graduate research symposia, conference. presentations, directed readings courses, independent studies, etc.).

3.2.2.6  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.

3.2.2.7  Presenting evidence of excellence in students 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  A candidate’s service will be evaluated by standards of quality established below.  Quality of service can be based on several factors:

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

3.3.2.2  Department, college, or university 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 (journals, grants, 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

3.4.1  Extension and engagement responsibilities could include a variety of activities and efforts to bring discipline-based knowledge to constituencies external to the university.  These activities can include:

3.4.1.1  External engagements.

3.4.1.2  Outreach activities.

3.4.1.3  Educational outreach.

3.4.1.4  Intellectual and/or technology transfer.

3.4.1.5  Professional interviews.

3.4.1.6  Evidence of outcomes/contributions.

3.4.2  Quality of extension and engagement activities can be demonstrated using measures appropriate for the activity, or as articulated in the candidate’s Statement of Mutual Expectations.

4.  STANDARDS FOR REAPPOINTMENT AS ASSISTANT PROFESSOR

4.1  Standards for Research, Creative Artistry, and Technological/Managerial Innovation

4.1.1  Candidates for reappointment must provide evidence of continued scholarly publication.  Evidence of scholarly work must 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 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).  The candidate’s SME should be used as a guide in evaluating the number of publications and the outlets for publication.

4.1.2  Creative artistry and/or managerial/technological innovation are made relevant to evaluation by a particular candidate’s Statement of Mutual Expectations.  Their evaluation must be documented (such as play reviews, copies of patents, etc.) as featured in the annual reports.

4.2.  Standards for Teaching

4.2.1  The candidate must demonstrate excellence in teaching and present a record of teaching activities that have been evaluated annually as excellent to outstanding.  (Refer back to 3.2 for general standards of quality.)

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.  (Refer back to 3.3 for general standards of quality.)

4.4  Standards for Extension and Engagement

4.4.1  Some extension and engagement activities may be appropriate, but untenured faculty members are encouraged to be judicious about engaging in extension at the expense of research and teaching.  (See 3.4 for general standards of quality.)

5.  STANDARDS FOR ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR WITH TENURE

5.1  Standards for Research, Creative Artistry, and Technological/Managerial Innovation

5.1.1  Candidates for associate professor must provide evidence of ongoing scholarly contributions in the field beyond those already made at the time of appointment.  Evidence of scholarly work must 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 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).

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 SME.

5.1.3  Regarding internal and external funding (grants), upon award, candidates must 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  Creative artistry and/or managerial/technological innovation are made relevant to evaluation by a particular candidate’s Statement of Mutual Expectations.  Their evaluation must be documented (such as play reviews, copies of patents, etc.) as featured in the annual reports.

5.2  Standards for Teaching

5.2.1  The candidate must demonstrate excellence in teaching and present a record of teaching activities that have been evaluated annually as excellent to outstanding.  (Refer back to 3.2 for general standards of quality.)

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.  (Refer back to 3.3 for general standards of quality.)

5.4  Standards for Extension and Engagement

5.4.1  Some extension activities may be appropriate, but untenured faculty members are encouraged to be judicious about engaging in extension at the expense of research and teaching.  (Refer back to 3.4 for general standards of quality.)

6.  STANDARDS FOR PROFESSOR

6.1  Standards for Research, Creative Artistry, and Technological/Managerial Innovation

6.1.1  Candidates for professor must 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 must 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 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 articles in scholarly journals and book chapters of equivalent quality.

6.1.2  Creative artistry and/or managerial/technological innovation are made relevant to evaluation by a particular candidate’s Statement of Mutual Expectations.  Their evaluation must be documented (such as play reviews, copies of patents, etc.) as featured in the annual reports.

6.2  Standards for Teaching

6.2.1  The candidate for professor must demonstrate excellence in teaching and present a continued record of teaching activities that have been evaluated annually as excellent.  (Refer back to 3.2 for general standards of quality.)

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.  (Refer back to 3.3 for general standards of quality.)

6.4  Standards for Extension and Engagement

6.4.1  Extension and engagement activities can be indicators of a candidate’s leadership and contribution in their domain.  (Refer back to 3.4 for general standards of quality.)

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 committee’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 must conduct with each faculty member.  The committee’s summary report may be shared with each faculty member, but a summary 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 with copies of all of the heads’ annual review letters to that candidate.  These letters are provided so that the voting faculty can ascertain the nature of the heads’ advice to the 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 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 department voting faculty in (or related to) the candidate’s area(s) of expertise.  This list must not include the candidate’s dissertation advisor or consistent scholarly collaborators.  Working with the department head, the selected members of the department voting faculty 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 for (customarily) a minimum of four years or more (at NC State University or another college or university) may confer with the department head concerning intent to seek promotion.  If the candidate believes he/she meets the standards of the department for promotion to professor and wishes to be considered for promotion, the candidate must announce by letter to the professors in the department his/her intention to seek promotion in the next fall semester following receipt of the letter.  The letter must be accompanied by at least a complete curriculum vita.  The professors may then meet and advise the candidate concerning his/her 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 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 must 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 Head sends the candidate’s publications to the external reviewers and requests a letter to arrive by September 1st but no later than September15th.

7.5  Fall Semester

7.5.1  By September 15:  Candidate completes dossier and makes it available to the Departmental Voting Faculty.  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), must be made available to the faculty committee no later than September 15.

7.5.2  By October 15:  Department Voting Faculty meets and makes decision.

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 must 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 Department Voting Faculty 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 committee report.

7.5.6  The department head’s evaluation of the applicant will be shared with the committee 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):  Complete dossier and departmental attachments are forwarded to the college.