RUL 05.68.42 – Department of Philosophy and Religious Studies Post Tenure Review Standards and Procedures

Authority: Executive Vice Chancellor and Provost

History: First Issued: November 16, 2009. Last Revised: March 22, 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 (919-515-6101)


This Rule describes the standards and procedures of the Department of Philosophy and Religious Studies for Post Tenure Review (PTR) of faculty. It supplements the NC State University Academic Tenure Policy and Regulation on Post Tenure Review of Faculty, which take precedence over this Rule to the extent that this Rule may be inconsistent with them. The Department Head is responsible for assuring that the procedures and standards set forth in NCSU REG05.20.04 – Post Tenure Review of Faculty, RUL 05.68.71- College of Humanities and Social Sciences Post Tenure Review of Faculty, and this Rule are followed.


2.1  Selection

2.1.1 The departmental PTRC will consist of 4–5 tenured faculty members who are not subject to PTR during the relevant academic year, including at least one Professor, one member of the Philosophy faculty, and one member of the Religious Studies faculty. All tenured faculty in the department are eligible to serve on the PTRC.

2.1.2 By  December 15 of any academic year in which faculty are subject to PTR, after consulting with the tenured faculty , the Department Head will appoint the PTRC for the spring semester of that academic year. The Department Head will also appoint a member of the PTRC as its Chair. In selecting the members of the PTRC, the Head will consider the following:

  1. a)    The composition of the PTRC should go some way toward reflecting faculty demographic diversity.
  2. b)    Taken as a whole, the PTRC should be broadly acceptable to departmental faculty.
  3. c)     For the sake of consistency, there should be a reasonable degree of continuity in PTRC membership from year to year.
  4. d)    If possible, the PTRC should include at least one faculty member who has not recently served on the PTRC.

2.1.3   If a member of the PTRC leaves the committee prior to the completion of its duties, the Department Head will appoint a replacement on the basis of considerations (a)-(d) in clause 2.1.2.

2.2  Meeting Schedule

The PTRC will meet and complete its deliberations in time to submit its written assessments of faculty who are subject to PTR to the Department Head by  February 12. The Chair of the PTRC is responsible for scheduling its meetings.


The documentation provided to the PTRC will be as listed in section 5.2 ofNCSU REG05.20.04 – Post Tenure Review of Faculty, providing that, in place of annual activity reports pertaining to the review period, the faculty member may elect to provide the PTRC with a single comprehensive activity report for the entire period prepared by the faculty member in consultation with the Department Head.


4.1  The Department Head will attend all meetings of the PTRC and answer questions and provide information about the process but may not vote.

4.2  By no later than  February 12, the PTRC will provide the Department Head with a written assessment of each faculty member who has been reviewed.

4.3  The Department Head will consider the written assessments of the PTRC, conduct a review, and prepare a written assessment of each candidate, and submit this assessment accompanied by the PTRC’s assessment to the Dean of the College of Humanities and Social Sciences by no later than March 1.


5.1 Faculty members subject to PTR are evaluated on the basis of the expectations specified in their Statements of Mutual Expectations (SMEs).

5.2 For each realm of responsibility specified in the faculty member’s SME, the PTRC and the Department Head determine whether the faculty member meets expectations, does not meet expectations, or exceeds expectations relative to the percentage of the faculty member’s workload that the SME assigns to that realm of responsibility. Based on these assessments, the PTRC and the Department Head will also make an overall determination of whether the faculty member’s performance meets expectations, does not meet expectations, orexceeds expectations. The determinations of the PTRC will be based on a simple majority vote.

5.3 Criteria for the determination of meets expectations in different realms of responsibility

5.3.1 Teaching. The faculty member’s teaching responsibilities during the review period should be proportional to the percentage of the faculty member’s workload assigned to teaching. Evidence of teaching effectiveness, regular attendance in class, punctuality, and availability for consultation are required. Factors to be taken into account in appraising teaching may include (but are not limited to) the following: willingness to contribute to the missions, goals, and objectives of the Department, the College, or the University; student evaluations and other feedback from students; peer evaluations; enrollments; curricular development (including documented work on substantial course revision, new courses, and new programs); number of individual student academic projects supervised.

5.3.2 Scholarship and Research. The faculty member’s scholarly and research activities and achievements should be proportional to the percentage of the faculty member’s workload assigned to scholarship and research. In the case of a faculty member who has a standard workload of 40% in this realm, the following two conditions must be satisfied.

  1. a)  The faculty member has demonstrated a commitment to serious ongoing scholarly work up to and including the end of the review period. The evidence should normally consist of (but is not limited to) more than one of the following: attendance and participation in scholarly discussion at conferences; presentations at conferences or to professional audiences (including departmental colloquia); submission of scholarly work to publishers or professional journals; recognition in the profession through prizes, fellowships, or grants; identifiable development in drafts of work in progress; active participation in advanced graduate seminars or advanced discussion groups; contributions to and impact on the scholarly work of others through commentary and discussion; curriculum development that depends on and is responsive to advances in the relevant field (providing the relevant research is not also counted toward the faculty member’s workload or performance in teaching).
  2. b) The faculty member has published at least the equivalent of either two articles during the past five years, or a book during the past seven years. For purposes of applying this clause: an article shall be understood as a substantial sole-author article of reasonable quality that has been published or unconditionally accepted for publication in a respected journal; a book shall be understood as a sole-author scholarly book of reasonable quality published by a respected publisher or in press with a respected publisher, with copy-editing complete; other scholarly work (including, e.g., coauthored works, articles in anthologies, translations, commentaries, book reviews, encyclopedia articles, and substantial editorial work) may be substituted for the above on the basis of relevant practices and expectations in the field; an unusually long or ambitious article may be assigned more weight than a regular article; and a smaller output is adequate if there is strong evidence that it is of very high quality or has had a significant impact.

For a faculty member whose workload in the realm of scholarship and research is above or below 40%, the above standards should be adjusted as required to accommodate the applicable workload.

5.3.3 Service. The academic and professional service responsibilities undertaken by the faculty member should be proportional to the percentage of the faculty member’s workload assigned to service, but Professors are expected to do more than Associate Professors with the same workload assignment. Evidence that the faculty member has carried out the applicable responsibilities adequately is required.

5.4 The determination of exceeds expectations will be made with respect to a realm of responsibility only if the faculty member’s performance in that realm is exceptional. An overall determination of exceeds expectations will be made only if the faculty member’s performance in at least 80% of the faculty member’s responsibilities is exceptional and the faculty member’s performance in all other responsibilities is clearly more than satisfactory.