RUL 05.67.402 - Department of World Languages and Culture Reappointment, Promotion and Tenure Standards and Procedures

RUL 05.67.402 – Department of World Languages and Culture Reappointment, Promotion and Tenure Standards and Procedures

Authority: Executive Vice Chancellor and Provost

History: First Issued: October 18, 2002. Last Revised: June 17, 2025.

Additional References:
Office of the Provost RPT Website
Guidelines for Evaluating Work with Digital Media in the Modern Languages (Modern Language Association’s Committee on Computers and Emerging Technologies, 2002)

Contact Info: World Languages and Cultures Department Head, (919-515-4101)

1. INTRODUCTION

1.1 This rule documents the standards and procedures for tenure-track faculty members in the Department of World Languages & Cultures for reappointment, promotion in academic rank, and/or the conferral of tenure, and is supplementary to and consistent with NCSU POL05.20.01 – Appointment, Reappointment, Promotion and Permanent Tenure and NCSU RUL05.67.411 – College of Humanities and Social Sciences Reappointment, Promotion and Tenure Standards and Procedures.

2. REALMS OF FACULTY RESPONSIBILITY

2.1 The three (3) realms of faculty responsibility recognized in the Department of World Languages & Cultures are discovery of knowledge through discipline-guided inquiry (scholarship), teaching and mentoring of undergraduate and graduate students (teaching), and service to professional societies and the discipline and service and engagement within the university itself (service). Evaluations of the quality and quantity of professional accomplishments in all three (3) realms will be used to make decisions concerning reappointments, promotions, and the granting of tenure. Faculty performance will be evaluated in recognition of the weight of percentages assigned to each realm of responsibility on the Statement of Faculty Responsibilities (SFR).

3. GENERAL STANDARDS

The Department of World Languages & Cultures seeks to appoint and retain as members of the faculty those individuals having the highest qualifications as demonstrated by their performance in teaching, including the ability to direct graduate study; in scholarship; and in service to the Department, University, and profession. A faculty member’s cumulative record of teaching, scholarship, and service is considered in all tenure, reappointment and promotion decisions.

3.1 Teaching

3.1.1 The Department expects its faculty to teach undergraduate and graduate courses (if applicable). Teaching includes traditional classroom teaching as well as the teaching of departmentally-approved distance education and online courses, wherever these can be evaluated formally by the Department. It also includes the advising of students and the direction of honors theses, master’s theses, capstone graduate projects, and Ph.D. dissertations (within and outside of this University), as well as membership on committees for theses and dissertations. Support for the teaching record will include student evaluations, course syllabi, peer observations of classroom teaching, and other materials demonstrating teaching excellence that a candidate and Department Head agree are appropriate to include in the dossier.

3.1.2 Evidence of teaching performance is normally demonstrated through student evaluations; recent observation of teaching by a tenured faculty member; syllabi and other teaching materials constituting a teaching portfolio (which may contain web material); course and curriculum development; teaching innovations; teaching awards; student achievements; and evidence of effective participation in advising and mentoring students, including directing graduate theses, projects, or dissertations.

3.2 Scholarship

Because NC State University is classified by the Carnegie Foundation as a Research University (very high research activity), a continuous record of scholarly production is expected. Faculty throughout their careers should pursue a program of professional development resulting in publications and nationally/internationally visible activities that contribute to the generation of knowledge in their fields.

As evidence of scholarship, the Department values the following:

3.2.1 Publication of:

3.2.1.1 Category One

Peer-reviewed, single- and co-authored scholarly books published by reputable academic presses, refereed articles in reputable professional journals, and/or refereed chapters in books published by reputable academic presses. All publications (books/articles/book chapters) will fulfill Departmental standards when published (either in print or electronic form) or when they have proceeded through a review stage at which publication is assured, as indicated by a letter of acceptance from an editor or a contract.

3.2.1.2 Category Two

A portfolio consisting of edited texts, translations, edited collections of scholarly essays in single volumes or special issues of scholarly journals, textbooks, book reviews, dictionary and encyclopedia entries, article-length annotated bibliographies, digital projects, and grants awarded extra muros. For purposes of evaluating textbooks, the Department considers textbooks measurable, like scholarly books, according to rigorous intellectual standards. For purposes of evaluating translations, the translation should make a significant contribution to the field and be published by a reputable press or refereed journal.

3.2.2 Candidates are to identify all authors in their works; for collaborative works, candidates should include an explanation of their contribution to the overall effort. Because collaborative publications take such a variety of forms, individual collaborative work is assessed on the basis of quality, as judged by colleagues in the Department and external evaluators, and the candidate’s contribution to the overall effort.

3.2.3 Work in progress is not by itself sufficient evidence of significant research. Promotion and tenure is based on published work, or on a combination of published and accepted work that has proceeded through a stage of review at which publication is assured.

3.2.4 As evidence of the quality of their work, candidates may include the following information to the extent it is available: reviews and citations of their work, editorial boards, acceptance rates, and other indicators of the quality of the presses, journals, and conferences where their work appeared.

3.2.5 The receipt of major honors and awards for scholarship, including fellowships and research grants;

3.2.6 The delivery of refereed scholarly papers at conferences, the presentation of invited papers and lectures, and the writing of reviews for tenure and promotion cases at other universities or as an external reviewer of programs and curricula;

3.2.7 The development of websites that reflect scholarly expertise and engagement; and

3.2.8 The holding of offices in professional organizations and membership on editorial and advisory boards to scholarly book series and/or serial publications.

3.2.9 In evaluating scholarship in electronic forms, the Department generally follows the recommendations of the Modern Language Association’s Committee on Computers and Emerging Technologies as set forth in Guidelines for Evaluating Work with Digital Media in the Modern Languages (Modern Language Association’s Committee on Computers and Emerging Technologies, 2002). Refereed electronic publications will be considered equivalent to print publications.

3.3 Service

Significant service to the Department, College, University, and profession is expected once tenure is conferred and in order to merit promotion to the rank of Professor. Service to the Department, College, and University may take a variety of forms, including administrative work, committee work, and work in outreach programs, and in activities such as program evaluations and external reviews, reviewing promotion and tenure cases beyond the Department, service on national committees, commissions, and task forces, and the like. Service can be assessed quantitatively from evidence provided in the dossier and qualitatively by Department and University colleagues. In the case of administrative service, faculty will have the opportunity to respond to administrative evaluation surveys about candidates serving in administrative positions in the Department.

4. STANDARDS FOR APPOINTMENT AND REAPPOINTMENT AS ASSISTANT PROFESSOR

For appointment or reappointment as Assistant Professor, there must be evidence of potential to meet the standards for promotion to Associate Professor with tenure. The following specific standards will be applied in considering appointment or reappointment:

4.1 Evidence of significant scholarship published or in progress, as described in section 3.2.

4.1.1 At the time of reappointment, the candidate must have at least one publication from Category One (see section 3.2.1.1), along with evidence of additional major scholarly work in progress from Category One and/or, if applicable, Category Two (see section 3.2.1.2).

4.2 Evidence of effectiveness in teaching, as demonstrated by evidence listed in 3.1, is required for candidates already employed as Assistant Professors; candidates from other institutions seeking appointment must provide comparable evidence of teaching effectiveness outlined in section 3.1.

4.2.1 Annual peer reviews of teaching.

4.2.2 A teaching portfolio which includes a statement of teaching philosophy, and a selection of representative course materials, such as syllabi, new courses created, and student papers.

4.3 Evidence of willingness and ability to work with colleagues, and participation in Department, College and University activities. The department recognizes that collegiality and the ability to cooperate with other faculty, staff, and/or students can affect a faculty member’s ability to meet the standards for their ranks and realms of responsibility. While collegiality in and of itself is not a performance standard, a lack of collegiality may be acknowledged in an evaluation process to the extent that it served as a factor that negatively affected the faculty member’s work performance in one or more of their realms of responsibility. A lack of collegiality and constructive cooperation are defined as behavior by the faculty member that negatively impacts the faculty member’s ability to fulfill their professional responsibilities or that negatively impacts the department’s ability to fulfill its academic mission. Some service is normally expected of untenured faculty members as outlined in their SFR (see 3.3), although they are encouraged to spend most of their time on professional development in teaching and research.

5. STANDARDS FOR ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR WITH TENURE

To be promoted and awarded tenure, a faculty member will be expected to have demonstrated distinction in scholarship, effectiveness in teaching, and contributions in service. Furthermore, a recommendation for promotion to Associate Professor and granting of tenure must be based upon an assessment that the candidate has a high likelihood of sustained contributions to the field or profession and to the University.

In considering tenure and promotion to the rank of Associate Professor the following standards will be applied:

5.1 There must be clear evidence of substantial accomplishment and promise as a scholar. An important criterion will be the candidate’s ability to initiate and develop a coherent focus in a area of scholarship. Excellence is judged by substantive content, originality, impact, and recognition in the candidate’s field of expertise. One of the candidate’s works can be a scholarly book. The candidate may also show evidence of scholarship by submitting at least six peer-reviewed publications documenting highly developed expertise in at least one area of specialization. These should be published or accepted as articles or book chapters in reputable academic venues in the candidate’s field (see Section 3.2.1.1). In all cases, whether promotion is pursued with book or article publications, excellence is judged by substantive content, originality, impact, and recognition in the candidate’s field of expertise. In cases where other types of publications are appropriate to the candidate’s field of study, the candidate may show evidence of scholarship by submitting a portfolio of substance that may count for up to two article publications toward tenure and promotion (see Section 3.2.1.2).

5.2 It is expected of every candidate that they be an effective teacher, whose instruction reflects familiarity with the current state of disciplinary thought. Such evidence of effectiveness in teaching is specified in section 3.1.

5.3 Involvement in service as appropriate for this level is specified in section 3.3, and evidence of willingness and ability to work with colleagues, as specified in section 4.3.

6. STANDARDS FOR PROFESSOR

Promotion to Professor depends upon continued professional development and achievement as reflected in scholarship, teaching, and service. After promotion to Associate Professor with tenure, the candidate may consult with the Department Head and the Department Voting Faculty (DVF) to assess whether they have met the criteria for promotion to Professor. The evaluation focuses on the candidate’s performance in the following areas of faculty responsibility:

6.1 Clear evidence of distinguished scholarship and an ongoing successful research program must exist. The candidate is expected to have published a significant body of work beyond the credentials submitted for promotion to Associate Professor. This body of work should represent a contribution of substantive national and international significance. To qualify for promotion, the candidate should have published at least one book or its equivalent (at least eight peer-reviewed publications documenting highly developed expertise in at least one area of specialization) since promotion to Associate Professor (see Section 3.2.1.1). In cases where other types of publications are appropriate to the candidate’s field of study, the candidate may show evidence of scholarship by submitting a portfolio of substance that may count up to two article publications toward promotion to Professor (see Section 3.2.1.2).

6.2 Documented record of effectiveness in teaching within the Department;

6.3 Documented record of sustained service through participation on committees and in other activities available within the university, as well as appropriate local, regional, national, and international activities, and evidence of willingness and ability to work with colleagues, as specified in section 4.3.

7. PROCEDURES FOR RPT REVIEW

7.1 DVF members not on leave must attend meetings and vote. DVF members unable to attend meetings in person need to participate in the faculty discussion via teleconference or else confer with the member of the DVF who has been delegated to write a summary of the faculty’s deliberations. DVF members on leave may participate in the process only if they indicate in writing to the Department Head 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. When members are unable to participate in person, Department Heads and Deans shall facilitate, where possible, confidential arrangements for receiving their consultation using practical means. In such cases, absentee votes are permitted and are to be combined with the votes of those present at meetings.

7.2 After careful study of the applicant’s file, the DVF will meet to 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.

7.3 A faculty member will be designated by the DVF to write a statement describing the findings of the faculty concerning the level of accomplishment and qualifications of the applicant for tenure, promotion, or both. All major perspectives voiced by the faculty present and voting will be represented in this description. Upon timely completion of this statement, the participating DVF will approve and/or amend the statement and forward it to the Department Head who will follow University policy for sharing it with the applicant. Because of the importance of all personnel decisions, the Department requires that all missing votes, negative votes, and recusals be explicitly described in the committee report.

7.4 The Department Head will follow University policy for sharing the Head’s evaluation of the applicant with the DVF and applicant.

7.5 DVF members unable to attend meetings may cast an absentee ballot. The absent member is responsible for reviewing the complete dossier before casting a vote.

7.5.1 The absentee ballot should be sent to the Department Head no later than the close of business on the day following the meeting. The absentee ballot may be sent by mail, fax, e-mail, telephone or any other future means of transmission. The Department Head shall keep the absentee vote confidential.

7.6 A candidate who feels that their case is exceptionally strong may request consideration for early tenure and promotion by means of a letter to the Department Head and the DVF. This letter must be received by March 1 of the academic year previous to that in which such a request would be considered.