RUL 05.67.411 – College of Humanities and Social Sciences Reappointment, Promotion and Tenure Standards and Procedures

Authority: Executive Vice Chancellor and Provost

History: First Issued: 2001-2002.  Last Revised: October 27, 2015.

Related Policies: 
NCSU POL05.20.01 – Appointment, Reappointment, Promotion and Permanent Tenure
NCSU REG05.20.19 – Realms of Faculty Responsibility
NCSU REG05.20.20 – Reappointment, Promotion and Tenure Dossier Format Requirements
NCSU REG05.20.11 – Scholarly External Evaluations for RPT Review
NCSU REG05.20.18 – Qualifications for Rank
NCSU REG05.20.34 – Non-Tenure Track Faculty Ranks and Appointments

Additional References:
Office of the Provost RPT Website

Contact Info: Dean, College of Humanities and Social Sciences (919-515-2467)


1. Introduction

This rule describes the College of Humanities and Social Sciences reappointment, promotion and tenure standards and procedures and is supplemental to and consistent with NCSU POL05.20.01 – Appointment, Reappointment, Promotion and Permanent Tenure. The College recognizes that the specific scholarly activities upon which faculty will be evaluated may vary within and across departments. The framing of discipline-specific standards for reappointment, promotion, and tenure is the responsibility of the Departments in the College. The standards used to evaluate faculty members for reappointment, promotion, tenure and comprehensive review reflect an expectation of high-level faculty performance in their respective disciplines.

2. Areas of Faculty Responsibility

North Carolina State University specifies contributions in six Realms of Faculty Responsibility as the principal standards for decisions about faculty reappointment, promotion, and tenure. The College recognizes the importance attached to these realms of responsibility. As a matter of principle, the College leaves the determination of specific standards for contribution in these realms to departments, with the understanding that departments’ standards will reflect high performance in each of the three general areas outlined below: teaching; scholarship, research, and creative activity; and service and engagement.

2.1. Teaching: All faculty members are expected to contribute effectively to the teaching mission of the College. Assessment of teaching effectiveness will rely on both student evaluations and faculty assessments.

2.2. Scholarship, Research and Creative Activity: Scholarly or creative production relevant to the discipline and, where appropriate, in interdisciplinary fields of study, is an important faculty responsibility. Faculty members should participate, through publication, in communities of scholarship extending beyond the university. (The meaning of ‘publication’ is left to departments to decide in accord with the standards of their disciplines.) An indicator of such participation is the quantity of work produced, but more significant is the quality of a faculty member’s contribution to a field of scholarship or creativity. Although it is the department’s responsibility to establish the relative weights assigned to the various types and forms of research and creative activity of its faculty, these weights must be consistent with the standards of the discipline and mission of the college.

2.3. Service and Engagement: All faculty members are expected to participate in the life of the department, college, and university by serving in various capacities on committees and other institutions of faculty governance. Faculty members should also serve their disciplinary and professional associations as well as other communities outside the university. The department head must manage the extent of faculty involvement to ensure adequate time is available to meet the expectations of Section 2.1 and 2.2 above.

3. General Standards

At the college level, the review of candidates will employ the standards of the university, standards in this college rule and the department standards with the expectation that faculty who are reappointed, promoted, and tenured within the college are highly qualified within their discipline, as demonstrated by their teaching, scholarly and creative achievements, and service/engagement and meet the needs and resources of the university. The merit of the faculty member’s performance rather than time in rank is the basic standard for all recommendations for RPT. However, the dossier should demonstrate that the faculty member has established a record of performance at NC State.

4. Standards for Reappointment as Assistant Professor

The college standards for reappointment as assistant professor are those articulated by NCSU REG05.20.18 – Qualifications for Rank.

5. Standards for Associate Professor with Tenure

The college standards for associate professor with tenure are those articulated by NCSU REG05.20.18 – Qualifications for Rank.

6. Standards for Professor

The college standards for professor are consistent with those articulated by NCSU REG05.20.18 – Qualifications for Rank.

7. College Rules and Procedures for the Reappointment, Tenure, and Promotion Process

College and departmental procedures for personnel reviews must be in conformity with university guidelines and procedures.

7.1. Timetable: Departments should identify those candidates who will be considered for reappointment, tenure and promotion by May of the academic year preceding consideration. External evaluations for promotion and tenure cases should be solicited before the end of May. External evaluators will be instructed to submit their letters before the end of September. Dossiers will be fully assembled and ready for departmental review by October 1. Members of the departmental voting faculty (DVF) will be given at least two weeks to review files before departmental votes. Meetings to discuss candidates will thus generally be scheduled for mid-October, but in no case later than November 1, when completed dossiers (with departmental vote tallies and written assessments from the Head and from the DVF) are delivered to the Office of the Dean.

7.2. External Evaluations: In tenure and promotion cases, departments must solicit external evaluations reviewing the scholarly contributions of candidates to their respective fields. Solicitation of letters from external evaluators must follow university regulations. The aim is to obtain five external evaluations. As outlined in the university regulation, names of external evaluators should be obtained through consultation with the candidate (who must be given the opportunity to suggest names of evaluators) and with other members of the departmental voting faculty. Department procedures for selecting external reviewers may vary, but care must be taken to ensure that external evaluators are distinguished scholars who can fairly, conscientiously, and objectively judge the candidate’s qualifications and contributions. External evaluators will be asked to assess the national reputation of the candidate and the quality and significance of the candidate’s scholarly work. To facilitate the process of review at the college and university levels, external evaluators should be asked to explain the larger significance of the candidate’s work in terms that would be comprehensible to those outside the candidate’s immediate discipline.

7.2.1.  In accordance with NCSU REG05.20.34 – Non-Tenure Track Faculty Ranks and Appointments Section 9.1.3 which requires that each Dean must establish for the college for all the categories of full-time (> 0.75 FTE) NTT faculty with professorial rank whether to require external evaluation letters for the dossier, the Dean of the College of Humanities and Social Sicences has decided the following:

Clinical Assistant/Associate/Full Professors:  Letters not required.
Extension Assistant/Associate/Full Professors:  Letters not required.
Research Assistant/Associate/Full Professors:  Letters not required.
Teaching  Assistant/Associate/Full Professors:  Letters not required.
Assistant/Associate/Full Professors of the Practice:  Letters not required.

7.3. Content and Assembly of the File: University regulations specify the material to be included in the candidate’s dossier. Additional material, beyond that called for in university regulations, should not be added to dossiers. Candidates whose RADAR entries list multiple investigators must include a brief (1-3 sentence) description of their role in each project within their dossier. Although manuscripts and copies of published work will play a major role in departmental deliberations on reappointment, tenure and promotion cases (and should be retained at the department level until the process is completed), this material should not be included in the dossier that goes forward to the college and the university. Once a department votes on a case (and adds the vote tally, and written assessments from the head and the DVF to the file) the candidate’s dossier is considered closed. However, in rare instances, new information (such as the acceptance of a manuscript for publication) important to the review process may be added to the dossier. However, no material may be added to or removed from the dossier after the departmental vote without official written notification of the department head and the candidate. A written note in the dossier will indicate what materials were added or removed and when that action occurred.

7.4. Written Assessments by the Department Head and the Departmental Voting Faculty: Written assessments from the Head and the DVF must substantively explain how the candidate’s accomplishments, as documented in the dossier, meet (or fail to meet) the standards for reappointment, tenure, or promotion laid out in departmental rules. In the event of a split vote of the DVF, the assessment from the DVF must explain both positive and negative votes. Departments may specify procedures asking voting faculty to provide written explanations of their votes for the purpose of ensuring sufficient explanation. Missing votes and abstentions must also be explained.

7.5. Rules and Responsibility of the CHASS Reappointment, Promotion and Tenure Committee (CRPTC): University tenure policy provides for a college Reappointment, Promotion and Tenure Committee.

The CHASS Reappointment, Promotion and Tenure Committee will consist of seven tenured full professors, five elected by departments and two appointed by the dean in the interests of balance and diversity. The five elected members will serve staggered two-year terms, with two or three members being elected in alternate years. The appointed members will serve one-year terms. The dean will designate those departments that are to hold elections each year. Not all CHASS departments will be represented on the committee at any one time, but the dean will ensure that all departments are given regular opportunities to elect representatives to the CHASS committee.

The primary purpose of the committee is to review dossiers and endorse (or oppose) candidates for reappointment, promotion and tenure by assessing whether the departments themselves have acted fully in accord with their own procedural and substantive standards. The college committee will not attempt to independently review a candidate’s scholarly contributions. The committee will normally assess three things: (1) that departments have procedurally followed their rule and university regulations; (2) that departments have appropriately applied their own substantive standards; and (3) that departments have provided appropriate evidence in the file to support their judgments. The committee will normally base its assessments solely on evidence documented in each candidate’s completed written dossier.

If the documentation or argumentation in a candidate’s dossier does not, in the committee’s view, seem to adequately explain the departmental recommendations offered, the committee may, before voting, send a case back to a department for further consideration or clarification, and resubmission. It may also ask a department head to come to speak to the committee to clarify critical issues. No member of the CHASS RP&T committee will take any part in the consideration of cases from his/her own department. Committee members will recuse themselves from both discussion and voting when cases from their own departments are before the committee. The committee will each year elect its own chair.

The CRPTC will document its review by providing a written statement of its conclusions for each candidate and a tally of the committee’s vote on the proposed action. The dean will then prepare a written assessment and recommendation. The tally of votes and written assessment by the CRPTC and dean’s written assessment will be provided by the dean to the head — who will in turn provide it to the candidate and DVF and the CRPTC. The candidate may provide to the dean a brief (two-page) written response within five business days of receiving the CRPTC’s and Dean’s written assessment. The dean will share the candidate’s response with the CRPTC, the head and DVF. Finally, the dean will add to the dossier the record of the CRPTC vote tally, the CRPTC written assessment, the dean’s written assessment and recommendation, and any optional response provided by the candidate prior to transmitting the dossier to the Executive Vice Chancellor and Provost for Academic Affairs for review. Upon making a recommendation not consistent with the vote of the DVF, the dean must meet with the DVF to discuss the recommendation.

All assistant and associate deans holding appointments in a DVF shall only participate in discussions in and only vote with their DVF.