Sociology and Anthropology - Departmental Standards for Reappointment, Promotion and Tenure

Sociology and Anthropology - Departmental Reappointment,Promotion and Tenure Standards and Procedures

RUL 05.67.410

Reappointment, Promotion and Tenure (RPT)
Print-friendly version

Authority: Provost and Executive Vice Chancellor

History: First Issued: March, 1992. Last Revised: December 10, 2007. Additional History Information.

Additional References:
Office of the Provost RPT Website

Contact Info: Department Head (919-515-3180)

1. Introduction

The Department of Sociology and Anthropology is administratively located in the Colleges of Agriculture and Life Sciences and Humanities and Social Sciences. The mission of the College of Agriculture and Life Sciences (CALS) is to educate students, constituents and the general public, and to create and extend new knowledge through scientific research and outreach in agriculture and the life sciences. The mission of the College of Humanities and Social Sciences is to serve the residents of North Carolina and meet the challenges of the 21^st century by educating our students to be future leaders and responsible citizens with a distinctive willingness to engage in the life of their communities, their state, and their nation. Within both colleges, the Department of Sociology and Anthropology has a multidisciplinary research and educational function serving many individuals and groups. The Department enjoys a rich history of significant contributions to solving social problems in the state, as well as establishing a national and international reputation. The mission of the Department is to teach and conduct research and outreach to help individuals, groups, and organizations in North Carolina, the region, the nation, and other countries better understand society and culture. Our vision is to be recognized as a community of scholars creating excellence through diversity and innovation.

The department head and the departmental voting faculty (DVF) are responsible for reviewing faculty member's accomplishments in relation to their individual appointments and for making recommendations on reappointments, promotions, and the conferral of tenure. The DVF shall consist of all tenured associate and full professors in the Department for consideration of the reappointment as well as promotion and tenure of assistant professors. The DVF shall consist of all tenured full professors for recommendations for promotion of associate professors. The standards, procedures, and other information in this document are intended as specific rules for faculty in the Department of Sociology and Anthropology with regard to reviews they will undergo for reappointment, promotion in academic rank, and/or the conferral of tenure. The information herein is supplementary to the NC State University Academic Tenure Policy found at: NCSU POL05.20.1- Academic Tenure Policy , and is congruent with the college and university standards. Permanent tenure at any rank may be conferred only by action of the Board of Trustees (BOT).

2. Areas of Faculty Responsibility

The standards set forth for the evaluation of faculty performance reflect the department's mission statement as outlined in the introduction. Each faculty member is expected to: 1) disseminate knowledge, whether through resident instruction, among peers, or to outreach students, including extension clientele; 2) generate knowledge through scholarly activities; and 3) provide service to the department, college, university and profession. While the mix of one's appointment distribution and job description are considered in any evaluation, each faculty member is expected to develop both an excellent teaching program (addressing students and/or colleagues on the NC State University campus, and/or outreach students and/or extension clientele) and a high quality well focused research program. While the research program expectations (quantity) vary with one's appointment, the quality of one's research productivity must be high. Each faculty member must develop a primary research focus-one that they should be nationally known for, regardless of their appointment distribution. The department deems service to programs of the department, college, university and professional organizations as a responsibility of each faculty member. It is recognized that service will vary among faculty members and for a faculty member over time depending, in part, on the specific faculty appointment.

3. General Standards

Each faculty member is expected to: 1) achieve excellence and national recognition in at least one area of teaching, research, or extension, and to demonstrate competence in the other areas relevant to his/her appointment; and 2) contribute to the intellectual life of the Department, College, University and profession through various service activities. Performance evaluations are designed to determine the extent to which these performance expectations are achieved and will be judged against the standards set forth in this document. Performance evaluations are used to make decisions concerning reappointments, promotions and the granting of tenure. Reappointments and promotion decisions depend upon both the quality and quantity of professional accomplishments. Tenure decisions are based on demonstrated performance but potential is also considered. Merit, rather than years of service, is the basic standard in all tenure decisions.

These standards apply uniformly to each faculty member. Teaching (including extension), research, and service are all important functions. Teaching and research are weighted more heavily than service in the department calculus in performance evaluations. This does not mean that service is unimportant. It means that service is a necessary but not sufficient basis for reappointment, promotion and tenure. All three areas are considered in determining the overall contributions of the faculty member for annual performance reviews, and for the reappointment, promotion and/or tenure process. Exemplary performance in one evaluation component (research, teaching, and service) cannot compensate for serious deficiencies in another. Within each evaluation component, however, outstanding performance in some respects may offset deficits in another.

Without the ability to work congenially and effectively with others at all employment levels, and to exhibit a positive and supportive attitude, other positive attributes and contributions of a faculty member are compromised and the potential for collaborative efforts and advances are forfeited. One's own self esteem and attitude, and its effect and impact on colleagueship and departmental growth, productivity and image cannot be ignored in the overall evaluation process.

Specific standards relevant to the areas of teaching, research, extension and service follow.

3.1. Performance Standards for the Evaluation of Research.

3.1.1. Development of a body of work in at least one substantive, methodological, or theoretical area that comprises a set of closely related works that build upon each other and advance knowledge in that area. The extent of the individual's contribution to a developing body of knowledge, rather than the proportion of single authored versus collaborative pieces, is the major consideration. Outstanding compilations of the scholarly research of others that point a field in new directions are also considered. A candidate for promotion submits a written statement characterizing the nature of his/her research agendas, outlining the connections and continuities in the work, as well as new initiatives undertaken during the research career.

3.1.2. Continuous involvement in the research process, including regular publication of original research in respected refereed journals, or in books from recognized academic publishers, either as complete monographs, or as chapters in edited volumes. Other evidence of productivity would include textbooks, review articles, published invited paper presented at professional meetings, citable publications and reports that are not peer reviewed, book reviews and unpublished papers and reports. (The previous listing implies a general hierarchy of quality.) More productivity is expected of candidates who have had research appointments, research leaves, and/or course load reductions for research than of candidates who have not had such advantages. Quality carries more weight than quantity.

3.1.3. Seeking and receiving external grant support, especially from nationally competitive sources as well as effectively managing, completing, and reporting the results of supported projects. While not required for promotion, these activities are considered as evidence of potential for distinction in research.

3.1.4. Supporting letters normally requested from at least five outside full professors in the discipline that attest to the high quality of the candidate's published work.

In addition, candidates must present evidence of some of the following indicators of commendable scholarly activity depending on their rank:

3.1.5. Annual research and/or theoretical presentations at regional and national professional meetings.

3.1.6. Multiple citations of the individual's published work appearing annually in the Social Science Citation Index; favorable reviews and/or citations in other scholars' published work.

3.1.7. External recognition, such as invited research or theoretical presentations at national conferences, and/or national or international awards for distinguished scholarship.

3.2. Performance Standards for the Evaluation of Teaching

3.2.1. Conscientious performance as a teacher as documented by student evaluations, peer observations and evaluations of teaching and evaluation of course materials, and other relevant information. A candidate for promotion submits a written statement characterizing the nature of his/her teaching activities. This short statement might include a narrative of teaching accomplishments including teaching innovations, course development, and work with graduate and undergraduate students, advising, mentoring, laboratory supervision, direction of research projects, papers, dissertations and theses, and other contacts and relationships outside the classroom.

3.2.2. Rich and current course content, as documented by course syllabi, handouts, ancillary instructional methods, and tests.

3.2.3. Innovation in teaching techniques, documented in part through award(s) of mini-grants.

3.2.4. Effective service as an advisor to undergraduates and/or graduate students, including service as member, chair, or co-chair of graduate student advisory committees.

3.2.5. Effective participation in other teaching-related activities; e.g., course and curricular initiation and review, teaching seminars and workshops, and preliminary doctoral examination subcommittees.

Evidence of outstanding performance in teaching includes receipt of a competitive teaching or advising award at the departmental, college, university and/or national levels.

3.3. Performance Standards for the Evaluation of Extension/Outreach

3.3.1. Development and implementation of a coherent extension agenda in at least one area of recognized need. Also see: (NCSU 05.20.8 - Evaluation of Faculty Outreach and Extension ).

3.3.2. Substantial achievement in the field of assignment as demonstrated through increasing and updating skills, keeping abreast of developments, and developing and applying relevant new knowledge.

3.3.3. Effective contributions to the university, community, state, and/or nation in producing innovative materials or approaches to problems encountered in extension activities.

3.3.4. Regular dissemination through appropriate media of applied knowledge relevant to extension activities.

3.3.5. Effective leadership and service to the profession as demonstrated by substantial recognition by peers at regional and national levels. This evidence may include supporting letters focusing on extension activities.

Evidence of outstanding performance in extension includes receipt of a competitive extension award at the college, university, or national levels.

3.4. Performance Standards for the Evaluation of Service

3.4.1. Faculty member must be a collegial and active member of the department, college, university, and professional community.

3.4.2. Outstanding service related to the candidate's field of expertise is recognized.

3.4.3. Sustained, conscientious participation through service as chair and/or member of active committee(s) at the department, college or university, and regional/national professional organization levels.

3.4.4. Service on editorial boards of refereed journals, review of manuscripts for refereed journals, appointment to review panels of federal funding agencies, and occasional reviews of grant proposals for foundations or federal funding agencies.

3.4.5. Demonstrated readiness to take the initiative and to pursue important assignments with enthusiasm and effectiveness.

Evidence of distinction in service includes nomination and election to regional/national office in professional organizations.

4. Standards for Reappointment as Assistant Professor

Reappointment to a second term as assistant professor requires the faculty member to provide clear evidence of having established programs in accordance with his/her individual appointment as outlined in the individual's letter of offer, and as described in the Statement of Mutual Expectation, Self Assessment, and the Plan for Faculty Development that the candidate must develop. Evidence must be documented in accordance with the university's policies for Reappointment, Promotion and Tenure, Rule POL05.20.1, and must include the types of evidence outlined in Section III of this document. At a minimum, reappointment will require:

4.1. Ability or definite promise in teaching, research, extension and/or other scholarly or germane activity.

4.2. Potential for directing classroom or extension-type teaching programs, applied and/or basic research, and graduate programs.

4.3. Ability and willingness to participate in department, college, university, and professional organization affairs.

5. Standards for Associate Professor with Tenure

Recommendations for appointment or promotion to Associate Professor with tenure will be made in relation to the candidate's responsibilities with regard to teaching, research and/or extension as documented in his/her letter of offer and Statement of Mutual Expectations. A successful recommendation will require the faculty member to provide clear evidence of having established programs in accordance with his/her individual appointment as outlined in the individual's original letter of offer, and as described in the State of Mutual Expectation, Self Assessment, and Plan for Faculty Development that the candidate has developed in conjunction with the department head. The candidate's evidence must be documented in accordance with the University's policies for Reappointment, Promotion and Tenure, Rule POL05.20.1. At a minimum, appointment to the Associate Professor level will require:

5.1. Recognized ability and potential for distinction in teaching, independent research, extension and/or other scholarly activity that is germane to the faculty member's appointment.

5.2. Clearly documented achievements, as appropriate for the individual's appointment, that demonstrate success in developing a classroom or outreach teaching program, an applied and/or basic research program including following through with publications in well recognized journals in the individual's area of specialization, and active participation and leadership of graduate programs, and/or leadership of appropriate extension programs.

5.3. Clear service contributions to the department, college, university and professional organizations.

5.4. Clear evidence of the development of a national reputation in the field.

6. Standards for Professor

Recommendations for appointment or promotion to Professor will be made in relation to the candidate's responsibilities with regard to teaching, research and/or extension as documented in his/her letter of offer and Statement of Mutual Expectations. A successful recommendation will require the faculty member to clearly demonstrate having developed a national reputation in his/her field. The candidate's evidence must be documented in accordance with the University's policies for Reappointment, Promotion and Tenure, Rule POL05.20.1. At a minimum, appointment to the professor level will require:

6.1. Distinguished achievement and leadership in teaching, in independent applied and/or basic research, or in extension and/or other scholarly activity that is germane to the faculty member's appointment.

6.2. Clearly documented ability, as appropriate to the individual's appointment, that demonstrate continuing and increasing success in developing a classroom or outreach teaching program, applied and/or basic research program including follow through with publications in well recognized journals in the individual's area of specialization, continued active participation and leadership of graduate programs, and/or continued leadership of appropriate extension programs.

6.3. Clear service contributions to the department, college, university and to national and international level professional organizations.

6.4. Clear evidence of the development of a national reputation in the field.

7. Procedures for RPT Review

Faculty evaluations are initiated in three ways:

7.1. As required under terms of the faculty member's contract

7.2. At the request of the individual faculty member

7.3. By recommendation of the DVF and/or department head

The DVF's and/or department head's agreement to review a candidate does not constitute sponsorship or endorsement. Agreement to review is not the same as agreement to forward a favorable recommendation to the dean. Agreement to review a candidate is the first step in the process, whereas forwarding a recommendation to the dean is the last step.

The department head announces the review schedule each year, which begins in the spring. This announcement initiates the review process by the tenured associate professors and tenured full professors and provides opportunity for individual faculty to request review. (A sample review schedule appears below.) The review schedule includes all important dates in the process.

The DVF or a faculty member may request a non-mandatory review for reappointment, promotion, or tenure. If recommended by the DVF, the department head invites the named faculty to submit their dossier for review. (Faculty may decline.) Other candidates are reviewed on a mandatory basis determined by the academic tenure policy.

The department head provides a letter with written instructions regarding procedures, timetable, and assembly of review materials by candidates for review.

External evaluations are requested for candidates for tenure and promotion to associate professor and professor. Candidates are invited to suggest the names of six to ten outside reviewers and may choose one as an external reviewer. The department head and DVF name four or more additional reviewers (not limited to the suggested reviewers). Requests for letters of evaluation are made by the department head. Outside letters normally come from full professors in the candidate's field.

The DVF meets in executive session when evaluating candidates, i.e., the meetings are open only by invitation, and tenured associate professors and tenured full professors are honor bound not to discuss the proceedings. While all may not be able to attend the executive session, all are entitled to vote. The vote and written summary evaluation of the candidate are sent to the department head, who shares the results with the candidate. The candidate is advised of her/his right to respond.

The department head forwards the vote of the DVF, DVF written assessment, her/his independent recommendation, and all supporting documentation, to the dean and advises the candidate on the outcome of the evaluation in a timely manner.

The review schedule for the department follows (specific dates are omitted in that they change each year):

200X-XX SCHEDULE FOR REAPPOINTMENT, PROMOTION AND TENURE DECISIONS

March XX, 200X:	Last date for candidates for early tenure, early promotion, or promotion to full professor, to declare themselves in writing to the department head; department head provides written statement of review procedures
March XX, 200X:	Each faculty member submits updated vitae to the department office.
May XX, 200X:	DVF completes its review of faculty vitae and annual activity reports.
May XX, 200X:	Letters requesting external reviews of declared candidates are mailed by department head.
September X, 200X:	Candidates for reappointment, promotion and tenure and for comprehensive review provide files for review.
September XX, 200X:	DVF begins reviews of candidates for reappointment, promotion and tenure.
September XX, 200X:	External review letters returned to the department.
October X, 200X:	Target date for department head to inform candidates of recommendations.
November 200X:	Department head's and DVF recommendations forwarded to the deans.

Left Navigation