RUL 05.68.16 – Department of Plant Pathology Post Tenure Review Standards and Procedures

Authority: Executive Vice Chancellor and Provost

History: First Issued: February 15, 2010.

Related Policies:
UNC Policy 400.3.3 – Performance Review of Tenured Faculty
NCSU POL05.20.01 – Appointment, Reappointment, Promotion and Permanent Tenure
NCSU REG05.20.04 – Post Tenure Review of Faculty
NCSU REG05.20.27 – Statements of Mutual Expectations
NCSU REG05.20.10 – Evaluation of Teaching

Additional References:
Office of the Provost RPT Website
NC State Guide on Peer Review of Teaching

Contact Info:  Department Head (919-515-2730)


1.  INTRODUCTION

This rule describes standards and procedures of the Department of Plant Pathology for post tenure review of faculty.  It supplements NC State University’s Academic Tenure Policy and Regulation on Post Tenure Review of Faculty.  To the extent of any inconsistency, the Academic Tenure Policy and Post Tenure Review Regulation control. The Department Head is responsible for assuring that the procedures as set forth in NCSU REG05.20.04 – Post Tenure Review of Faculty and this Rule are followed.

2.  POST TENURE REVIEW COMMITTEE (PTRC)

2.1 Selection

2.1.1 The PTRC shall consist of the tenured faculty in the Department of Plant Pathology. The process is administered by the Departmental RPT committee which is a committee of three with one member elected by the tenured faculty of the Department each year.  Individuals to be reviewed in a given year will not serve as members of the PTRC during that year.  The meeting will be chaired by the chair of the RPT Committee.

Faculty to be reviewed will be notified by the department head in writing early in the calendar year of the review. Documentation is to be prepared by April 15 for review by the PTRC.

2.1.2 The PTRC Chair should familiarize himself or herself with the applicable policies and regulations and this rule.

2.2   Meeting Schedule

2.2.1 The Department Head will schedule a meeting for all tenured faculty except those who are scheduled for review, i.e., the PTRC, on or before June 15. The PTRC shall conduct the review per the procedures in section 5 of REG 05.20.04 which includes specific recommendations for improvement, as well as recognition of areas of accomplishment, and the numerical vote that determines if the faculty meets or does not meet expectations. Each faculty member under review will be discussed individually.

2.2.2 The PTRC Chair will coordinate the schedule with the Department Head, and prepare and transmit reports from the committee to the Head and to the faculty members reviewed.

3.  DOCUMENTATION PROVIDED TO THE PTRC

Each faculty member being reviewed is requested to prepare a comprehensive Vitae with emphasis on the past five years and other documentation set forth in section 5.2 of university NCSU REG05.20.04 – Post Tenure Review of Faculty and make them available for inspection by giving them to the Departmental Administrative Assistant. The format should be consistent with the criteria used in the review process.

4. ADDITIONAL PROCEDURES REQUIRED BY DEPARTMENT

N/A

5.  PERFORMANCE STANDARDS

5.1 Standards for Associate Professor

Associate Professors are to be evaluated to determine if they are performing the realms of responsibility set forth in their Statement of Mutual Expectations at the Associate Professor standard as set forth in the Department’s Rule on Reappointment, Promotion and Tenure Standards and Procedures. They must present evidence that they are maintaining the standards for promotion to associate professor as set forth in the Academic Tenure Policy and college and departmental reappointment, promotion and tenure rules.

5.2 Standards for Professor

Professors are to be evaluated to determine if they are performing the realms of responsibility set forth in their Statement of Mutual Expectations at the standard set forth in the Department’s Rule on Reappointment, Promotion and Tenure Standards and Procedures.  They must present evidence that they are maintaining the standards for promotion to full professor as set forth in the Academic Tenure Policy and college and departmental reappointment, promotion and tenure rules.

5.3 Standards of performance for each of the three departmental functions

5.3.1 Criteria for Post Tenure Review for Faculty with Academic Appointments

Faculty having a formal teaching appointment of 10% or more should be able to document participation in all three of the following areas during the review period (3/5 years).

5.3.1.1 Teach or co-teach a credit generating class. Appropriate classes include formal (regularly scheduled) courses, special topics courses, or serving as seminar chair. Faculty holding greater than a 10% teaching appointment should teach/co-teach a formal class at least once in alternate years. Documentation of participation should include a) a table listing classes taught, year, enrollment, mean class and instructor ratings, b) lists of guest lectures given in classes, c) dates of serving as the seminar chair, d) other appropriate documentation.

5.3.1.2 Involvement in graduate and/or undergraduate programs. Activities include advising graduate students, serving on graduate committees, serving as an undergraduate advisor, advising undergraduates in laboratory projects, administrative activities, and recruiting. Documentation should include a) a list of graduate students advised, thesis topic, date of graduation, and current position, b) list of graduate committee participation, c) administrative activities including recruiting, d) years and numbers of undergraduates advised, e) undergraduate students supervised in laboratory projects, f) other activities including other advising activities, organizing and/or participating in research symposia, discussion group coordinator, etc.

5.3.1.3 Other academic affairs involvement. Documentation should include a list of teaching publications, training grants, teaching grants, serving on committees (Department, College, University and APS), K-12 outreach, and other appropriate academic affairs participation.

Teaching participation and quality may be supported with appended information. Such information may include copies of student evaluations, copies of peer review documents where available, evidence of success in guiding students (e.g. comments from the graduate program director or comments from exit interviews with students), a table giving the CALS formula number for academic affairs activity over the review period, etc.

5.3.2 Criteria for Post Tenure Review for Faculty with Extension Appointments

Among the criteria below, show evidence of innovation in the program or program delivery and impact on clientele.

5.3.2.1 Provide clientele, especially extension field faculty, the training to keep them effective, current, and forward-thinking. Annual evidence cited may include classroom, field, person-to-person, or electronic training.

5.3.2.2 Provide educational support as necessary. Evidence cited should include annual grower or commodity meetings, diagnosis support (site visits, clinic diagnosis, digital diagnosis), electronic news, mass media, WWW support, or clientele feedback.

5.3.2.3 Keep disease management recommendations current. Evidence cited should include published up-to-date annual disease management recommendations.

5.3.2.4 Respond to new or reemerging diseases and evaluate up-to-date disease management tactics through applied research. Over five years, evidence cited should include Fungicide and Nematicide or Biological and Cultural Tests publications, authorship on a refereed journal article, and appropriate changes in recommendations.

5.3.2.5 Provide clientele with appropriate and current support materials for their educational program efforts. Annual evidence cited should include contributions to or development of extension publications (paper or electronic), videotapes, computer programs, advisories, or WWW pages to cover major diseases on assigned commodities or group of commodities (e.g. Ornamentals). Support materials for major diseases on each commodity should be revised every two to three years.

5.3.2.6 Participation in cross-disciplinary activities. Include evidence of contributions to Cooperative Extension Major Programs, CALS or University initiatives. Evidence should include joint educational efforts, publications, or committees.

5.3.2.7 Receive sufficient extramural funds, within the context of the assigned commodities, to show good reputation among funding agencies and to support a significant portion of his/her extension program.

5.3.2.8 Anticipate long-range program issues and scenarios and plan for the future.

5.3.2.9 Establish peer recognition in commodity and discipline. Evidence to include active participation in regional and national societies and clientele groups, including invited presentations.

Additional documentation should include examples of extension products produced and input from primary clientele, usually field faculty.

5.3.3 Criteria for Post Tenure Review for Faculty with Research Appointments

The criteria used as descriptors in the post-tenure review process are not qualitatively different from those used for other reviews for tenure and promotion. However, it should be recognized that they are being used as measures of accomplishment in this review to ensure that minimal levels of activity have been achieved. Thus, the application of these measures as expectations would appear to be significantly less rigorous than when used for the purpose of promotion (reward) and tenure (a predictor of future success).

The descriptors used for evaluating research accomplishment are the most widely agreed upon among the activities of teaching, extension and research. There are those activities which provide direct evidence of discovery and scholarly accomplishments.

5.3.3.1 Although publications originating in the faculty member’s program will be emphasized, all publications will be considered. There should be annual evidence of contributions in disciplinary journals at or above the impact level of Plant Disease or Phytopathology. Unusual contributions should be accompanied by documentation of significance such as citation statistics.

5.3.3.2 Authorship of scholarly books or major reviews and book chapters in organs such as the Annual Review of Phytopathology. There should be a clear link between present and or past original research contributions and the book or review.

5.3.3.3 Awards of grants that indicate change of direction or invigoration of the program are also a measure of activity.

5.3.3.4 Software development and implementation that complements or enhances one’s area of responsibility is another measure of scholarly achievement.

5.3.3.5 Patents and license agreements are additional measures of research accomplishment and are indicators of impact.

5.4 Other activities may complement the activities listed above, but should not be used in lieu of original research contributions. These activities include:

5.4.1 Level of extramural funding. It is expected that extramural funding be obtained by individual investigators (individually or collectively); however, funding is an input to research and should not be used as a surrogate for publications.

5.4.2 Membership on editorial review boards, peer review panels for granting agencies, serving as a reviewer for prestigious journals and other review or advisory bodies for professional, governmental or private organizations is a recognition of accomplishment.

5.4.3 Service to the Department, College and University. An important distinction here should be made between membership and leadership roles. Allowances should also be made to senior faculty who assume major administrative duties.

5.4.4 Active involvement at the local, state, regional and national levels associated with professional organizations and with commodity organizations are important functions, but should not interfere with overall progress towards research goals.

5.4.5 Success in mentoring undergraduate and graduate students and postdoctoral researchers. Mentoring activities used to measure research accomplishments should be accompanied by appropriate documentation and publications with the mentor.

5.4.6 Evidence of productive collaborations with other researchers. Faculty is encouraged to engage in collaborative projects. To the extent possible, the roles and responsibilities of the individual participants should be documented.