RUL 05.67.901 – Department of Landscape Architecture Standards and Procedures for Reappointment, Promotion and Tenure

Authority: Executive Vice Chancellor and Provost

History:  First Issued: April 30, 2015. Last Revised: March 5, 2018.

Related Policies: 
NCSU POL05.20.01 – Appointment, Reappointment, Promotion and Permanent Tenure
RUL 05.67.106 – College of Design Reappointment, Promotion, and Tenure Criteria and Procedures

NCSU REG05.20.27 – Statements of Mutual Expectations

Additional References:
Office of the Provost RPT Website

 

1. INTRODUCTION

1.1 This rule describes the standards and procedures for reappointment, promotion and tenure (RPT) in the Department of Landscape Architecture and is supplemental to and consistent NCSU POL 05.20.01 – Appointment, Reappointment, Promotion and Permanent Tenure, NCSU RUL 05.67.106 College of Design RPT Rules, and NCSU REG 05.20.34 Non-Tenure Track Faculty Ranks and Appointments.

1.2 The mission of the Department of Landscape Architecture is to teach, learn, research, and apply state of the art design practices that create innovative and resilient landscapes focused on human and ecosystem health, safety and wellbeing, social equity, and quality of life.  As supporters of the Landscape Architecture Foundation’s Declaration, we emphasize evidence-based inquiry and design thinking that positions students and graduates to engage with and propel the landscape architecture profession into the future as it evolves in response to environmental and societal imperatives.

2. Areas of Faculty Responsibility

Realms of responsibility for faculty members are outlined in NCSU POL 05.20.01 – Appointment, Reappointment, Promotion and Permanent Tenure and include Teaching and Mentoring, Discovery of Knowledge, Creative Artistry, Technological Innovation, Extension and Engagement, and Service, in accordance with each individual’s Statement of Mutual Expectations (SME).

2.1 Teaching

Fundamental to the education of the Department’s students is their education as well rounded creative individuals who have been prepared to enter the profession and possess the tools and discipline necessary to continue to grow after their formal education.

2.2 Scholarship

Scholarship in the form of the discovery of knowledge, creative artistry, and technological innovation is essential to the Department of Landscape Architecture. It is through activities in these areas that a faculty member remains current, that ideas are tested, that the reputation of the Department is often measured, and that contributions are made to the discipline and profession.

All faculty members in the Department of Landscape Architecture are expected to be active in one or more of these areas of scholarship. The Department Head and the faculty member’s mentor(s) should continually, and especially as part of annual reviews, remind the faculty member of the importance of scholarly contributions.

2.3 Extension and Engagement with Constituencies Outside the University

There are various Extension and Engagement activities for a Landscape Architecture faculty member to engage. Appointment to some of these activities may be prestigious, while at other times it is the efforts of the faculty member within the context of the service that deserves recognition. Efforts in areas of extension and service are expected to be in areas consistent with a faculty member’s academic preparation and teaching assignments as described in the faculty member’s SME. These activities are important as they extend the Department’s influence and reputation to the university community, the profession, other landscape architecture programs, and the public.

2.4 Service in Professional Societies and Service and Engagement within the University

Each member of the Department of Landscape Architecture faculty is expected to participate in the affairs of the University, College, or Department.

3. General Standards

3.1. Performance Categories

3.1.1. Does not meet expectations as set forth in the SME. The faculty member does not show evidence of minimally acceptable performance, i.e., failure in several of the categories described in Sections 3.5, failure to initiate scholarly activity, to disseminate results, or to subject the work to peer review, failure to serve on Department, College, and/or University committees and failure to contribute to the life of the Department through participation in Department and College events.

3.1.2. Meets expectations as set forth in the SME. The faculty member shows acceptable performance and promise for future accomplishment including: teaching, scholarship with realistic plans for dissemination and peer review, serves on Department, College, and /or University committees, and contributes to the life of the Department through participation in Department and College events.

3.1.3. Exceeds expectations as set forth in the SME. The faculty member: excels in some categories of teaching and curricular innovation; generates a consistent program of scholarship with record of dissemination and successful peer review; serves on/chairs Department, College, and/or University committees; contributes to the life of the Department through participation in Department and College events; and makes significant contributions to the community and profession through outside service.

3.1.4. Exemplary Performance. The faculty member establishes a sustained reputation with formally recognized distinction and recognition outside this Department and College through exceptional performance in areas of teaching and curricular innovation, scholarship and/or service/engagement within the areas set forth in the SME.

3.2. Criteria for evaluation of teaching performance.

3.2.1. New Course Development and Innovation. Consideration should be given to the course, its development, and its importance to the curriculum. Must include peer observation of instruction.

3.2.2. Curricular Innovation. Consideration should be given to the faculty member’s contribution to and involvement with the curriculum.

3.2.3. Current Syllabi and Class Assignments. Consideration should be given to course development, rigor, and appropriateness of syllabi and assignments to course objectives and appropriate student evaluation.

3.2.4. Advising. Consideration should be given to the involvement in and effectiveness of the faculty member’s student advising at the graduate and/or undergraduate levels. This advice may be formal academic advising or informal advice regarding professional or academic development.

3.2.5. Student Evaluations. Consideration should be given to the course and teaching evaluations from the last three years.

3.2.6. Evaluations from Alumni. The review committee may solicit, with the help of the faculty member, testimonials from alumni who have had the opportunity to reflect on the impact of faculty member’s teaching on their development. In many respects, this time away from the moment of teaching can make these testimonials more meaningful than when solicited at the time of teaching.

3.2.7. Participation in Other Classes. Consideration should be given to the faculty member’s participation in other faculty’s classes (lecture, seminar, and/or studio). Such participation offers excellent opportunities for peer assessment of the faculty member, their contribution and preparation.

3.2.8. Visiting Critic, Guest Lecturer, Guest Juror at Other Departments of Landscape Architecture. Consideration should be given to the type and length of involvement by the faculty member. Testimonials from the other Departments should be considered if available.

3.2.9. Awards for Teaching Contributions. Consideration should be given to the status of the sponsoring agency (international, national, regional, state, or local) and the basis of the award.

3.3. Criteria for evaluation of scholarship.

The following types of activities and measures of performance are seen as appropriate for consideration of faculty in the Department. These are related to diverse aspects of professional practice and academic scholarship. This list is not exclusive; it provides a guide for Department, College, and University reviews. The Department has not specified a given number of each type of performance at each professorial rank. It is more appropriate that the reviewing body assess the quality and importance of the scholarship activity, that it recognize that some of the appropriate activities have greater impact than others, and that some take considerably more effort and time to accomplish.

3.3.1. Landscape Architectural Practice. It is expected that work in this area would exceed simple client service and demonstrate a contribution to the profession, represent a creative or intellectual stretch beyond normal practice, or be recognized by awards or publication. It is also recognized that contributions in this form of scholarship are difficult and usually slow to develop. Success often depends on several participants beyond the control of the faculty member, and appropriate recognition of contributions is usually to a very small percentage of endeavors. Efforts in this type of scholarship are very important to a professional program. Evidence of work should be documented through visual reproduction. Efforts in this form of scholarship are expected to be in areas consistent with a faculty member’s academic preparation and teaching assignments.

3.3.1.1. Professional License. Successful completion of licensure examination is in itself an accomplishment and represents a level of capability to be legally trusted to design buildings. It also signifies a desire to engage in professional activity in landscape architecture.

3.3.1.2. Professional Commissions. While securing commissions to perform landscape architectural work does not usually represent normal peer evaluation; it sometimes, especially in public landscape, is the result of a process that involves competition for the project. Consideration should be given to the landscape architect selection process, the prominence of the project, and the reputation of the client.

3.3.1.3. Design Awards. Consideration should be given to the status of the awards program itself (national, regional, state, or local), the sponsor of the awards program (American Society of Landscape Architects, trade organizations, or material suppliers), the reputation of the awards program, and the prestige of the jury. Where it is possible to ascertain, the number of entries juried and the level of award should also be considered. Also to be considered are awards for a body of work.

3.3.1.4. Publication of Professional Work in industry, popular, and peer reviewed journals. Consideration should be given to the status of the publication (book, professional journal, trade magazine, popular journal, newspaper), its distribution (international, national, regional, local), and the type of coverage (featured article, article, mentioned as part of larger topic). For publication of teaching activities, consideration should be given to the status of the publication (book, professional journal – refereed or not -, trade magazine, popular journal), its distribution (international, national, regional, local), the type of coverage (featured article, article, mentioned as part of larger topic), and critical reception.

3.3.1.5. Competitions. Design competitions are one way of securing professional work. It is also a means by which the landscape architect can explore ideas without a commission to analyze, plan or design landscapes. Consideration should be given to the level of competition (international, national, regional, or local), the number of entrants, the scope of the work, and the prestige of the sponsor and the jurors (thus the significance of the competition).

3.3.1.6. Exhibitions. Consideration should be given to the status of the exhibition, whether the entries were juried or not, the prestige of the exhibition’s location, whether a one person show or one-piece in a larger exhibition, and documented critical reviews.

3.3.1.7. Invited Lectures. As a result of professional work, one might be invited to present in a lecture format either a single piece of work or a body of work. The importance here is the dissemination of information and the recognition of the importance of and interest in one’s professional work. Consideration should be given to the significance of the audience and sponsor (a university, a professional society, a trade organization, or a civic group), to whether the sponsor is a national, regional, or local group, and to the scope of the presentation (a lecture, participation on a panel, a tour of the building).

3.3.1.8. Consulting. In the capacity of a professional, one might be asked to assist another organization in a consulting role. Consideration should be given to the nature and scope of the consulting (policy making, technical assistance, or application of expertise), the employing agency (a government group or agency, a private organization, or a firm), the impact of the consultation. Documentation (reviews, published articles or books giving credit to the faculty member, or evidence of the impact of the consulting) of the dissemination of this consultation should be considered.

3.3.2. Research. It is assumed that output in this area will make original contributions to the body of knowledge pertaining to the practice and discipline of Landscape Architecture or landscape architectural education (this category could include teaching innovations when they are undertaken with a research perspective and are applicable to the field in general). Efforts in this form of scholarship are expected to be in areas consistent with a faculty member’s academic preparation and teaching assignments. In many respects, this type of scholarship comes closest to the type of scholarship normally produced in a university. However, reviewers must be aware of the caveat regarding funding indicated below when judging a Landscape Architecture faculty member‘s contribution in this area.

3.3.2.1. Grants and Sponsored Programs. Consideration should be given to the development of research proposals, the securing of funding, the ability to engage and support graduate students, the execution of the project, and the critical evaluation of the finished project. It should be recognized that funding within the discipline often tends to lap into other areas: physical sciences, engineering, computer technology, social programs, history, etc. There are few funding programs that sponsor strictly landscape architectural research. Consideration should be also given to the prestige of the funding agency, the impact or the potential of the impact of the work, and the value of the grant.

3.3.2.2. Unfunded Research. Because of the circumstances indicated above, some valuable research might have to be engaged without funding. In these cases, consideration should be given to the dissemination of this research through publications, presentations, and lectures (see below). External reviewers may also be asked to give assessments of the quality and importance of this work, its relevance to the field, and its potential to garner future funding or dissemination opportunities. In the case of work in its beginning stages, it is expected that the faculty member would include a development plan that indicates possible funding sources and venues for dissemination.

3.3.2.3. Publication of Research Work. Consideration should be given to the status of the publication (refereed/non-refereed; national distribution; and professional, scholastic, trade, or popular journal) and the scope of the work (book, chapter in a book, article, or abstract).

3.3.2.4. Reviews and Citations. Consideration should be given to the quality of the work as reviewed in journals and to the frequency with which the faculty member’s research work is cited or serves as a platform for another researcher.

3.3.2.5. Papers Presented. One of the avenues for dissemination of research work is the presentation of papers at professional conferences. Consideration should be given to the level of the conference (international, national, or regional), whether the papers are refereed or not, and the amount of involvement in the conference (paper given, moderator, panelist). The paper’s inclusion in the published proceedings of the conference should also be considered.

3.3.2.6. Invited Lectures. Consideration should be given to the status of the sponsor and the audience (university, association, professional organization, and researchers), the scope of the presentation (a series of lectures, a single lecture, or a keynote address), the area of scholarship represented, and critical reviews.

3.3.2.7. Proposal Reviewers and Editorial Boards. The faculty member’s status might result in invitations to serve on professional or academic panels that review proposals for funding, to referee papers for inclusion in professional or academic conferences, or to sit on editorial boards of professional or academic journals. Consideration should be given to the scope of the work; the prestige of the panel, conference or journal; and the reputation of fellow reviewer’s or editorial board members.

3.3.2.8. Awards. Consideration should be given to the type of award given (international, national, regional, or local), whether the award is for a particular piece of research or a body of work, and the prestige of the awarding agency.

3.4. Criteria for Evaluation of Extension and Engagement with Constituencies Outside the University

3.4.1. Service on Awards or Competition Juries. Consideration should be given to status of the sponsoring agency (professional, trade, or popular – governmental or commercial), the level of the awards program or competition (international, national, regional, state, or local), and the prestige of the other jurors.

3.4.2. Presentations to Public or Civic Organizations. Consideration should be given to presentations about landscape architecture, one’s work in landscape architecture, or landscape architectural education.

3.4.3. Publication in the Popular Press. Consideration should be given to articles in the popular press (newspapers, magazines) about landscape architecture and landscape architectural education, as well as, in other non-professional venues.

3.4.4. Pro-bono landscape architectural service within the Community. Consideration should be given to the level of service and involvement by the faculty member within areas consistent with their academic preparation and teaching assignments.

3.5. Criteria for Evaluation of Service in Professional Societies and Service and Engagement within the University

3.5.1. Service in Professional and Academic Organizations. Consideration should be given to the level of the organization (international, national, regional, state, or local) and the faculty member’s involvement (board of directors, chair of a committee, member of a committee, organizer of an activity, participant).

3.5.2. Accreditation Teams. Consideration should be given to whether the faculty member participated as the chair or a member of visiting teams, the number of accreditation visits, and any special recognition or accomplishments resulting from such activities.

3.5.3. Each member of the Department of Landscape Architecture faculty is expected to participate in the affairs of the University, College, or Department. This participation can be as an active member of a committee or task force. Consideration, in the evaluation of the faculty member’s service, should be given to the level of involvement of the faculty member (chair or member – active or not), the contribution of the faculty member as verified by observation or peer testimonial, how active the committee was, and the importance of the committee.

4. STANDARDS FOR REAPPOINTMENT AS ASSISTANT PROFESSOR

The expectation of an Assistant Professor seeking reappointment in the Department of Landscape Architecture is that performance meets expectations in all areas of the faculty member’s responsibility and exceeds expectations in one area as set forth in the SME.

5. STANDARDS FOR ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR WITH TENURE

The expectation of a faculty member seeking tenure and promotion to associate professor in the Department of Landscape Architecture is that performance in teaching and scholarship exceeds expectations and at least meets expectations in the other areas of the faculty member’s responsibility as set forth in the SME.

6. STANDARDS FOR PROFESSOR

The expectation of a faculty member seeking promotion to full professor in the Department of Landscape Architecture is that performance in scholarship is exemplary and that it exceeds expectations in teaching and the other areas of the faculty member’s responsibility as set forth in the SME.

7. PROCEDURES FOR RPT REVIEW

The Department of Landscape Architecture follows the procedures as described in the NCSU RUL 05.67.106 – College of Design RPT Rule.

7.1 Definition of Departmental Voting Faculty (DVF)

Departmental Voting Faculty are defined in POL 05.20.01 – Appointment, Reappointment, Promotion and Permanent Tenure and RUL 05.67.106 – College of Design RPT Rule.

7.2 Procedures for a Faculty Vote on RPT

After all members of the DVF have reviewed materials in the online RPT system and there has been appropriate discussion, voting will be done by secret ballot.  In addition, a complete report will be written on the full range of votes cast and including a brief specific documentation of the faculty member’s strengths and weaknesses.  The written assessment will be circulated to, and approved by, the DVF before being entered into the online RPT system.

7.3  Absentee Voting

Absentee votes may be submitted to the Chair of the DVF by faculty who are unable to attend the DVF meeting.  The Chair will make sure that all materials are available via the online RPT system to eligible absentee voting faculty.  Faculty members are encouraged to submit a written evaluation with their absentee vote.  Chair of the DVF will announce the deadline for submission of absentee votes.