RUL 05.67.603 - College of Natural Resources Contract, Reappointment, Promotion and Tenure Standards and Procedures

RUL 05.67.603 – College of Natural Resources Contract, Reappointment, Promotion and Tenure Standards and Procedures

Authority: Executive Vice Chancellor and Provost

History: First Issued: January 2001. Last Revised: April 28, 2026.

Contact Info: Dean, College of Natural Resources, (919-515-2883)

1. Introduction

This rule describes the standards and procedures for reappointment, promotion, and tenure for tenure track faculty, and subsequent contract and promotion for professional track faculty, in the College of Natural Resources (CNR) and is supplemental to and consistent with POL05.20.01 – Appointment, Reappointment, Promotion and Permanent Tenure and REG05.20.34 – Professional Faculty Ranks and Appointments.

This document is intended to guide faculty by clarifying expectations, for committees to use while evaluating cases, and to provide guidance on the types of questions that need to be asked when evaluating cases. This document is also intended to provide Department Heads with a common format for comparing the merits of various recommendations, to provide clarity for mentorship and guidance, and to facilitate procedural equity within the department and college.

The process by which decisions are made must explicitly encourage our faculty to excel by continuously growing in professional stature and accomplishments. It must be based on clear criteria and a database that is consistent across the college. It must encourage the faculty member to think not only about accomplishments, but about ways to constantly improve.

The primary business of faculty is scholarship,whether in classroom teaching, discovery, or the process of applying knowledge. Scholarship is defined as the systematic, continuous, and rigorous expansion of the knowledge base of society.

1.1. Statement of Faculty Responsibilities (SFR).

Before performance can be assessed, the faculty member and the Department Head should agree broadly to the responsibilities to be undertaken. If agreement is not achieved, ultimate authority for the SFR remains with the Department Head. The principal mechanism at NC State for establishing these responsibilities is the SFR (see REG 05.20.27 – Statements of Faculty Responsibilities, which is the starting point for the preparation of the RPT Dossier.

2. Realms of Faculty Responsibility

Each faculty member will be evaluated in regard to the realms outlined in the SFR and general standards established by the university and stated in the POL05.20.01 – Appointment, Reappointment, Promotion and Permanent Tenure for tenure track/tenured faculty and REG05.20.34 – Professional Faculty Ranks and Appointments for professional track faculty, as appropriate for the particular appointment and SFR.

The College of Natural Resources recognizes six realms of responsibility outlined by the university:

Teaching and Mentoring of Undergraduate and Graduate Students (Teaching and Mentoring)
Discovery of Knowledge through Discipline-Guided Inquiry (Research)
Extension and Engagement with Constituencies Outside the University (Extension and Engagement)
Creative Artistry and Literature
Technological and Managerial Innovation (Innovation)
Service to Professional Societies and the Discipline and Service and Engagement within the University itself (Service)

With regard to the percentages of effort for each realm, the department will determine, in consultation with the faculty member, what is expected. The SFR will be reviewed annually and adjusted by the department head if deemed necessary.

3. General Standards

There is no formula for tenure or for promotion (as applies to both tenure track and professional faculty), nor should there be. Decisions about these matters will always be based on individual faculty productivity in the areas outlined by the SFR. The process of evaluating faculty for subsequent contract, reappointment, promotion and/or tenure should be structured to encourage a high level of accomplishment and a constant quest for excellence in scholarship, however scholarship is manifested. Faculty members being considered for subsequent contract, reappointment, promotion and/or tenure will be assessed based on the following three questions by the Departmental Voting Faculty (DVF) and the College Reappointment, Promotion and Tenure Committee (CRPTC):

Is the faculty member doing what is expected of them?
Is the work being done in an exemplary way?
Has the faculty member clearly demonstrated a commitment and a capacity to continue to improve the quantity, quality and impact of their work?

To help Department Heads, candidates, DVFs and the CRPTC, a table consisting of example metrics under each of the different realms is provided. This table will be reviewed each year by the CRPTC to ensure it is up-to-date.

3.1. Teaching and Mentoring

Teaching must be approached as a scholarly pursuit in which the faculty member is constantly testing new ideas and approaches to teaching, systematically evaluating their effectiveness, and adjusting accordingly. The dossier should describe these approaches to teaching improvement and the results of experimenting with different approaches. Examples of such documented endeavors include presentations and scholarly articles written about lessons learned in the classroom, teaching innovations, and other dimensions of teaching, advising, and guiding undergraduate and graduate students.

Various constituents can evaluate the teaching skills of faculty. Students are best equipped to evaluate whether a faculty member demonstrates a sincere interest in them. ClassEval and Peer Review of Teaching instruments are means by which an instructor is evaluated. Internal peers are in a good position to judge whether the material being presented is up-to-date and whether the faculty member is contributing to the overall mission of the unit.

3.2. Discovery of Knowledge

The organized peer review system for research grants and scientific publications provides a process to assess the research of faculty members. However, the task of assessing the significance of the research is far more involved than counting articles. Therefore, the dossier must go beyond a mere listing of publications, grants, and awards. It should encapsulate and define the most significant ideas or concepts that have emerged from the research, the significance of these ideas, and their actual or expected impact on the scientific community or on the practice. This discussion, in the candidate statement of the dossier, should be written in terms that can be understood by the non-specialist in the field.

Faculty engaged in research should also be constantly thinking about ways to improve. Therefore, dossiers should explicitly describe, in their candidate statement, such things as intellectual barriers that have been reached in conducting research and steps that were taken to overcome these barriers. For example, this may describe taking a course on new techniques or traveling to a different institution to learn from others.

Outstanding research should reflect intellectual curiosity, creativity, a high level of scientific integrity and impact. Advising and training undergraduate and graduate students are integral parts of research activity. Relevant examples of scholarly activity to be included are listed here.

3.3. Extension and Engagement

The scholarship of extension and engagement requires that faculty members be constantly evaluating their outreach programs, developing or improving methods of technology transfer, learning from the results of their on-the-ground work, and reporting these outcomes through pertinent scholarly avenues.

Several attributes are critical to be outstanding in extension and engagement. These include a demonstrated interest in meeting the needs of clientele groups, practical experience in the area of expertise, knowledge of the field, creativity, communication skills, and evidence of positive impact. Evidence demonstrating this impact could include evidence of the scope and impact of dissemination efforts that were developed (e.g., websites, blogs, online tools), recognition and awards. A template and example of how to structure the extension and engagement section of the dossier is listed here.

Internal peers can be most helpful in reviewing annual plans of work and assessing their creativity and likely impact. External peers with extension and engagement experience can help evaluate the creativity demonstrated by the person in terms of their knowledge of the field, and level of communication skills.

3.4 Service

Service is essential to the proper functioning of NC State. Without the active participation of faculty in governance and other activities, NC State cannot adapt to the ever-changing needs of students, the community, and society. The strength of the institution relies heavily on the commitment of faculty to act as a community of interdependent members rather than as a body of independent individuals. Service is not simply an individual goal, but an opportunity to shape and advance the mission and goals of CNR and NC State.

All faculty in CNR are expected to contribute through service.

4. Standards for Reappointment as Tenure-Tract Assistant Professor and Subsequent Contract for Assistant Professors in Professional Track

Based on the SFR and the general standards in Section 3, the faculty member is expected to demonstrate recognized ability and potential for distinction in the realms of responsibility for which they have assigned effort. They are expected to also show progress toward being promoted to associate professor and promise of future success in supporting the mission and needs of the college and university. The trajectory of tenure-track assistant professors should indicate progress towards tenure.

5. Standards for Associate Professor with Tenure and Subsequent Contract for Associate Professor in Professional Track

Based on the SFR, the candidate is expected to show progress toward being promoted to professor and promise of sustained productivity, growth, and leadership. In addition, they are expected to have established a strong national record of accomplishments in their area of expertise, have national recognition and uphold the mission of the college and university.

6. Standards for Professor in Tenure Track and Subsequent Contract for Professor in Professional Track

Based on the SFR and the general principles in Section 3, the candidate is expected to have established a record of distinguished achievement in their area of expertise. Cumulative outstanding leadership within the university, over an extended number of years, which contributes to the national or international recognition of university programs, may be more heavily weighted than a faculty member’s individual national or international recognition and reputation. Finally, the candidate is expected to show sustained and demonstrated effective leadership, particularly in the areas outlined in the SFR and demonstrated leadership for service both on campus and to the profession. In addition, their efforts must support the college and university mission.

7. Promotion of Professional Track Faculty

7.1. Unlike review of tenure-track faculty for promotion, there is no mandatory timeline for promotions for professional track faculty members. The merit of the faculty member’s performance, rather than time in rank, is the basic standard for all recommendations for promotion. The dossier must demonstrate that the faculty member has established a record of performance at NC State consistent with promotion criteria. They may request to be considered based on consultation with or recommendation from the Department Head and/or the DVF. If a professional faculty member would like to be considered for promotion, they may go through the RPT process prior to issuance of a subsequent contract. Subsequent contracts at a higher rank must follow the promotion procedures outlined in REG 05.20.34 – Professional Faculty Ranks and Appointments.

7.2. Although the same standards in each of the realms of faculty responsibility apply to professional track faculty, most professional track faculty have the majority of their effort focused in one realm. This should be considered in deliberations and in selecting peers to serve as external reviewers. For example, if an assistant teaching professor is being considered for a promotion, selecting external reviewers who can effectively evaluate and describe the quality, effectiveness and impact of the candidate’s teaching will be important. For specific guidance on external evaluations, see REG 05.20.05 – Consultation and Written Assessments, Recommendations and Responses in RPT review.

7.3. If the number of eligible professional track faculty at the same rank is fewer than three, the Department Head and the Dean will appoint faculty members from allied departments in such number as to provide a group of three members to serve as the DVF for the case. ,

8. Procedures

8.1. Statement of Faculty Responsibilities (SFR)

The SFR is part of the dossier and will follow the requirements as defined in REG 05.20.27 – Statements of Faculty Responsibilities.

8.2. Dossier

The primary database for reappointment, promotion and tenure decisions is the full dossier of materials. Format and content requirements for the dossier are described in REG05.20.20 – Reappointment, Promotion, and Tenure Dossier Format Requirements.

8.2.1. In accordance with REG05.20.34 – Professional Faculty Ranks and Appointments, which requires that each Dean must establish for the college for all the categories of full-time (> 0.75 FTE) professional track faculty with professorial rank whether to require external evaluation letters for the dossier, the Dean of CNR has decided the following:

Clinical Associate/Full Professors: Letters required.
Extension Associate/Full Professors: Letters required.
Research Associate/Full Professors: Letters required.
Teaching Associate/Full Professors: Letters required.
Associate/Full Professors of the Practice: Letters required.

External evaluation letters may be solicited from others outside academia.

8.2.2. Candidates may ask to review external letters included in the dossier after the departmental review is completed. A request for review of external letters should be a written request to the Department Head.

8.3. College Reappointment, Promotion and Tenure Committee (CRPTC)

8.3.1. Purpose

The primary purpose of the committee is to review dossiers and provide a written assessment which focuses on the relevant college level standards, the degree to which it is clear that the department review adhered to stated departmental standards and was undertaken in a manner that supports a fair decision, and whether candidates have satisfied the applicable standards specified in their home department’s RPT Rule.

8.3.2. Composition of CRPTC for tenure track candidates

8.3.2.a. The CRPTC is made up of six tenured professors, two from each of the three departments in CNR. Membership on the CRPTC is restricted to tenured faculty with the rank of Professor.

8.3.2.b. Representatives will serve two-year terms, staggered within departments so that one representative is chosen at the beginning of each academic year. Representatives may serve consecutive terms depending on need.

8.3.2.c. If a representative cannot serve out their term, the Head of the department in which that person resides will choose a replacement to complete the remaining term.

8.3.2.d. The committee will elect a chair from among the members of the committee who have served for at least one year.

8.3.3. Composition of CRPTC for professional track candidates

8.3.3.a. If there are professional faculty members being considered for promotion, three additional professional track faculty members will be assigned to serve on the CRPTC for the deliberations and vote for those professional track faculty. In addition to the tenure track CRPTC members, the professional track CRPTC members will vote on professional track promotions but not on tenure track cases. The Dean, in consultation with Department Heads, will appoint the additional three members to serve one year. Subsequent appointments will be allowed. The Department Heads and Dean will make an effort to appoint faculty in the same track (e.g., research, teaching, extension) as the faculty member under consideration by CRPTC for promotion.

8.3.3.b If there are not enough professional track faculty in a particular track, other full time faculty from any rank could be invited by the Dean to provide some context and insight related to the deliberations. However, these faculty are not eligible to vote.

8.4. The Process

8.4.1. The Dean will ensure that dossiers are complete and will notify the CRPTC when they are ready for review, vote and assessment.

8.4.2. The CRPTC will review the dossiers in a timely manner and, by formal vote in the Faculty Excellence Portal, support or not support the requested action.

8.4.3. The vote and a written assessment for each candidate by the CRPTC will be via the Faculty Excellence Portal and will be included in the candidate’s dossier as it moves forward to the university level.

8.4.4. If the Dean’s assessment and recommendation differ from the DVF, Department Head and/or CRPTC, the Dean may meet with the Department Head and review committees to discuss the process relative to the College’s RPT standards.

8.5 Voting

8.5.1 To avoid duplication of voting at the department and college level, no member of the DVF and CRPTC may vote on a candidate more than once.

8.5.2. The first-year (of the two-year term on the CRPTC) tenure track member from each department serving on the CRPTC will vote only at the department level on cases from their home department. These members will participate fully in the deliberations, but will not be included in the total eligible CRPTC’s votes for these cases.

8.5.3. The second-year (of the two-year term on the CRPTC) tenure track member from each department serving on the CRPTC will vote only at the college level on cases from their home department. These members may participate in the deliberations at the department level, but will not be included in the total DVF votes for these cases.

8.5.4. The professional track faculty members serving on the CRPTC will vote at the college level on professional track faculty cases and will not vote with the DVF at the department level. Professional track faculty members will only be eligible to vote on cases of professional track faculty in their same track.

8.5.6. College administrators who hold tenured positions in a department in CNR vote with the DVF of their home department. University administrators with tenure homes in the College may vote with the DVF of their home department if they devote a minimum of 0.5 FTE to regular department faculty responsibilities.

8.5.7. Votes will be taken via the Faculty Excellence Portal.

8.5.8. If the professional track faculty member being considered for a subsequent appointment receives a positive result for promotion in the same year as their subsequent contract consideration, their vote for promotion will also serve as a vote for a subsequent appointment at the new rank. In all cases, the final decision for subsequent contract remains with the Dean.