RUL 05.67.600 – Department of Forestry and Environmental Resources Reappointment, Promotion and Tenure Standards and Procedures

Authority: Executive Vice Chancellor and Provost

History: First Issued: October 7, 1991. Last Revised: March 27, 2020.

Additional References:
Office of the Provost RPT Website

Contact Info: Department Head (919-515-2893)

1. Introduction

This rule describes the standards and procedures for reappointment, promotion and tenure (RPT) in the Department of Forestry and Environmental Resources and is supplemental to and consistent with the college rule and NCSU POL 05.20.01 – Appointment, Reappointment, Promotion and Permanent Tenure.

The Department of Forestry and Environmental Resources teaches and promotes the science and practice of forestry and natural resource management. Integrated teaching, research, and extension programs in the Department of Forestry and Environmental Resources will provide leadership in enhancing productivity and achieving sustainable forest management on private and public lands in the South and the world.

Hereafter in this rule, “senior faculty” refers to tenured full professors and, “junior faculty” refers to tenured or tenure track assistant professors and tenured or tenure track associate professors.

2. Areas of Faculty Responsibilities

The six realms of faculty responsibility include: (1) teaching and mentoring students, (2) discovery of knowledge through discipline-guided inquiry, (3) creative artistry and literature, (4) technological and managerial innovation, (5) extension and engagement with constituencies outside the university, and (6) service in professional societies and within the university itself. The manner in which various faculty members may demonstrate their credentials in these realms is described in the individual’s Statement of Faculty Responsibilities.

3. General Standards

3.1. Scholarship in Forestry and Environmental Resources

In evaluating candidates for reappointment, promotion and tenure, the Departmental Voting Faculty will consider the following accomplishments as evidence of scholarship in the six realms of faculty responsibility. The following list is not exhaustive, but is provided to assist faculty in presenting appropriate evidence of scholarly accomplishments associated with the six realms. The list is not ranked in order of importance, as appropriate evidence of scholarly accomplishment will vary for each faculty member.

3.1.1. Innovative contributions that have resulted in significant change

3.1.2. Superior performance as evidenced by peer (internal and external) evaluation

3.1.3. Awards for excellence

3.1.4. Receipt of external funding (grants, coops, gifts)

3.1.5. Publishing peer reviewed papers, proceedings, or book chapters

3.1.6. Publishing or editing books

3.1.7. Publishing non-peer reviewed publications with significant synthesis and new interpretation

3.1.8. Presentations at national and international professional meetings

3.1.9. Receipt of patents

3.1.10. Leadership in the development and implementation of international activities

3.1.11. Leadership in the development and implementation of new courses and curricula

3.1.12. Leadership in the development and implementation of new programs

3.1.13. Leadership in the development and application of new technologies

3.1.14. Leadership in professional societies, working groups, advisory councils

3.1.15. Successful collaboration with other faculty, scientists, professionals

3.1.16. Successful mentoring of undergraduate and graduate students

3.1.17. Successful mentoring of post-docs and junior faculty

4. Standards for Reappointment as Assistant Professor

Reappointment as Assistant Professor requires that the individual is making satisfactory progress towards meeting the standards for promotion to the rank of Associate Professor with tenure (Section 5).

5. Standards for Associate Professor with Tenure

Promotion to Associate Professor with tenure will be evaluated for each faculty member with an appropriate and individual integration across the faculty member’s contributions in teaching, research and extension with due consideration to effective service to the institution. In general, the expectation is that a faculty member will have demonstrated the potential to achieve national or international recognition for the faculty member’s contributions in scholarship and leadership.

6. Standards for Professor

Promotion to Professor will be evaluated for each faculty member with an appropriate and individual integration across the faculty member’s contributions in teaching, research and extension with due consideration to effective service to the institution. In general, the expectation is that a faculty member will have achieved national or international recognition for the faculty member’s contributions in scholarship and leadership. However, for promotion to Professor, cumulative outstanding leadership within the university, over an extended number of years, that contributes to the national or international recognition of university programs may be heavily weighed in lieu of the faculty member’s individual national or international recognition for scholarship and leadership.

7. Procedures for RPT Review

7.1. Mentoring Committees

Because the Department Voting Faculty is the body that initially evaluates and makes the recommendations regarding reappointment, promotion, and tenure, it is important that the Department Voting Faculty be kept appraised of the contents of each Statement of Faculty Responsibilities for faculty members below the rank of full professor. For these consultations, the Department Voting Faculty will be represented by Mentoring Committees consisting of two Professors and one Associate Professor for Assistant Professors and Three Professors for Associate Professors. In each case, at least one member of the Mentoring Committee will be outside of the faculty member’s specific sub-discipline. Any new or modified Statement of Faculty Responsibilities should be brought before the Mentoring Committee at the earliest opportunity. It is the responsibility of these committees to critique each Statement of Faculty Responsibilities so submitted and to inform the department head if the committee sees a danger that a given Statement of Faculty Responsibilities places too little time, emphasis, or accountability on the types of scholarly achievement that will be required for the Department Voting Faculty to justify a positive recommendation regarding promotion and/or tenure.

7.2. Specific Activities

7.2.1. The department head notifies each faculty member who must be considered, or who is eligible to be considered, for reappointment, promotion, and tenure. At the same time the department head solicits from the faculty member materials (dossier) that will enable the Department Voting Faculty to make an informed decision regarding his/her case. The faculty member will be given at least one month in which to assemble this dossier. The format in which the dossier is submitted must follow the format indicated on Provost’s reappointment, promotion, and tenure procedures web site.

7.2.2. In preparing the dossier for consideration, the faculty member should bear in mind that excellence is the standard by which his or her performance is evaluated. Therefore, each member will wish to provide narrative, in the section on scholarship that speaks to the criterion of excellence. For example, evidence of particularly successful or effective teaching innovations or a discussion of the significance of one’s most important research and/or engagement activities and publications will be more convincing than the simple enumeration of such accomplishments.

7.2.3. The department head appoints a Reappointment, Promotion and Tenure Committee, consisting of four Professors and two Associate Professors that represent the various sub-disciplines within the department. This committee (with one designated as chair) evaluates the dossier submitted by each candidate faculty member in detail. The committee prepares a written evaluation for consideration by the entire Department Voting Faculty and the department Head.

7.2.4. All members of the Department Voting Faculty read and evaluate the credentials of each person being considered for action. The Department Voting Faculty meets, hears the RPT committee recommendations, and makes its recommendation to the department head. Any decision reached regarding a faculty member must be supported by a recorded vote of those present taken by secret written ballot showing the votes for, against, and abstaining. Members of the Departmental Voting Faculty not present at the meeting are given an opportunity to vote by secret ballot.