College of Agriculture and Life Sciences - Reappointment, Promotion and Tenure Standards and Procedures

College of Agriculture and Life Sciences
Reappointment, Promotion and Tenure Standards and Procedures

RUL 05.67.22

Reappointment, Promotion and Tenure
Print Friendly Version

Authority: Provost and Executive Vice Chancellor

History: First Issued: March, 1999. Last Revised: October 22, 2004. Additional History Information.

Additional References: Office of the Provost RPT Website

Contact Info: Dean of the College of Agriculture and Life Sciences (919-515-2668)

1. Introduction

This rule describes the standards and procedures for reappointment, promotion and tenure decisions in the College of Agriculture and Life Sciences and is consistent with and supplemental to the university Academic Tenure Policy.

To be applicable to faculty members in various disciplines and with differing responsibilities, college-wide guidelines must, of necessity, be general. Each department has developed specific guidelines appropriate to the types of activities and disciplines of its faculty. The College recognizes the importance of a mix of activities leading to creative scholarship and supports the Realms of Faculty Responsibility. Further, the College recommends that all departments follow the guidelines for evaluation of scholarly accomplishments known as the Glassick Standards.

The college and department rules are intended to identify areas to consider in evaluating faculty for reappointment, promotion, and tenure. Evaluation must be an on-going process that includes guidance, recommended changes, peer feedback, and sensitivity to the faculty member’s growth toward or away from his or her original capacity and position. There is no substitute for careful consideration of the standards that are most appropriate to the faculty member within a department, field, or discipline and the clear enunciation of those standards at that level as a specific guide for development and evaluation.

2. Areas of Faculty Responsibility

2.1. Instruction Contributions – Teaching and Mentoring of Undergraduate and Graduate Students

Scholarly accomplishments in teaching and learning are manifested in numerous ways via contributions in the instructional area. Creativity and innovation in the development of courses, pedagogical approaches, and contributions to curricular quality contribute to the scholarship of teaching. Some aspects of a faculty member’s creativity should lead to scholarly publications on teaching methods, textbooks, laboratory manuals, audiovisual, computer-based educational programs, and other scholarly products. Invitations to participate in symposia, conferences, and other activities related to teaching are provide measures of recognition by peers on the regional, national, or international level. Effort and success in obtaining support via grants, contracts, gifts, and other mechanisms for the development and delivery of instructional material is important and also indicate scholarly accomplishment in teaching.

Teaching effectiveness is evaluated by responses on student questionnaires as well as through evaluation by peers, e.g. direct observation of classroom teaching, examination of the syllabus, exercises and tests. Although single or infrequent observations can provide some data, regular observations are more valuable and useful. The University regulation Reporting Teaching Evaluations in RPT Review must be followed.

Standardized instruments for evaluation are required, but in special cases (such as graduate-level courses or highly specific, low-enrollment courses) more appropriate methods may be used. Specific written comments from students are valuable in all aspects of evaluating teaching effectiveness.

Exit interviews of students by the department head or the departmental teaching coordinator are recommended as an excellent way to gather data on teaching effectiveness. Follow-up interviews with students who have been out of school for a few years are also valuable.

Academic advising is an integral part of the teaching responsibility and must be considered in any evaluation. A survey of students at or after graduation is an appropriate way to evaluate the effectiveness of faculty advising. Faculty are encouraged to utilize the college instrument developed for advising evaluation at least once a year to obtain feedback from students, and the results from these assessments should be discussed with the department head. Information on placement of advisees also can be used to indicate the effectiveness of advising, although it is more applicable to graduate students than to undergraduates. Advising load is another factor to be considered and must be managed by the department head.

Honors, awards, and other special recognitions are other indicators of quality and dedication to teaching.

2.2. Research Contributions – Discovery of Knowledge Through Discipline-Guided Inquiry

Research productivity is usually equated with conducting research and reporting results in peer-reviewed journals; however, it also takes other forms. These forms may include the publication of books and the production of scholarly works of a form and type determined by the department or discipline. One example is development of computer software.

Quantity is an important indicator of regular activity, but more significant is the quality of the contribution to new knowledge in the field and its integration into practical application. The department must determine the relative weight given to various types and forms of research activity. The College defines a peer-reviewed publication as one that has undergone review by peers selected by an editorial board of a reputable, cited journal.

Each department should set guidelines defining a reasonable quantity of research activity in terms of the number of items produced and their format. It is important that the guidelines identify expectations for faculty members holding split appointments.

Effort and success in attracting extramural funding is another indicator of research productivity. This funding may take different forms including, but not limited to, direct grants, university mini-grants, unrestricted gifts, and in-kind support.

Although independent research is the basis of most research activities and recognition, collaborative research is important in many fields. Ability to cooperate with other faculty members is an important personal characteristic. Cooperation may include participating in successful regional programs.

Training of graduate students and postgraduates is an important contribution to a field. Success of graduates is a measure of the strength of a program.

2.3. Extension Contributions and Engagement with Constituents Outside the University

Extension and engagement responsibilities include a variety of scholarly activities and efforts. Examples are technical assistance, applied research, and a variety of formal and non-formal educational efforts.

The programs developed and implemented must be coherent and focused in the area of responsibility with continuity among program activities. Effort must be focused on meeting the needs of clientele. Changes in program efforts may be appropriate with changes in political, financial or social emphasis and support and should be incorporated in a revised Statement of Mutual Expectations. When appropriate, there should be a documented partnership with field faculty. A relationship between the program and the Cooperative Extension Plan of Work must be evident in goals and accomplishments.

Documented impacts must include the use of state-of-the-art techniques and innovative approaches that maximize benefits from the extension and engagement efforts. Impacts should include effective contributions to local, state and /or the larger society through the production of innovative materials and new approaches to solving problems. Evidence of accomplishments may include innovative instructional materials or demonstrations, technical assistance, and other methods.

Leadership and participation in interdisciplinary teams in development and delivery of extension programs must be documented. This includes cooperative relationships with other faculty within and outside the College, and with organizations that serve the same clientele. Effective leadership recognized by peers and clientele at the local, regional, and national levels should be demonstrated.

Continuous improvement in the field of concentration should be documented through increasing and updating skills, keeping abreast of clientele needs, and developing and applying relevant new knowledge. Recognized professional achievement through the production of refereed publications, honors, awards, exhibitions, prizes, invited papers, and presentations should be achieved. Publication as a form of scholarship should encompass the quantity, quality and most appropriate form and outlet as determined by appointment and clientele served.

Efforts at and success in attracting extramural funding is important. This funding may take different forms including, but not limited to, direct grants, university mini-grants, unrestricted gifts, and in-kind support.

2.4. Service in Professional Societies and Within the University Itself

All faculty members are expected to become involved in the operation of the department, college, and university by serving in various capacities (for example, on committees, boards, panels, task forces, and commissions). Faculty members are also expected to further their disciplines by providing service to their professional societies by serving as officers or on committees, serving as editors and reviewers for professional journals or other professional publication outlets, and serving on study and review panels for governmental agencies and funding organizations. Although there is a reasonable limit to the extent of involvement (to be managed by the department head), it is not unreasonable for these tasks to occupy an average of 10 to 15 percent of a faculty member’s time. Appointments requiring larger amounts of time should be approved in advance by the department head.

3. General Standards

The standards to be used in evaluating faculty members for reappointment, promotion, tenure must reflect an expectation of high-level performance in all types of scholarly activities based on the job description of the appointment and Statement of Mutual Expectations. In addition, the overall program of the faculty member must have addressed the mission and needs of the department and the College.

Regardless of their specific type of appointment, all faculty members to be successfully promoted from assistant to associate professor with tenure or from associate professor to professor must demonstrate and document that they have made regular contributions to their discipline in appropriate forms. These contributions should be defined more broadly than the publication of research, as many different forms of scholarly activity contribute to the field. Reputation among peers is important in evaluating faculty. To be successfully promoted or tenured, faculty must have established a regional or national reputation. International recognition should be required, if appropriate for the discipline, for promotion to the rank of professor. Recognition by peers on a national and international basis is more critical in the evaluation of faculty for promotion to the rank of professor than for promotion to lower ranks, although satisfactory progress toward the development of peer recognition should be evident. Receipt of awards and honors provides a basis for quantifying recognition. Other examples are invitations to participate in symposia, to hold editorships, serve on national, regional and state review panels and policy panels. Nomination and election to positions of leadership in professional societies also indicate recognition. Publication as a form of scholarship should encompass the quantity, quality and most appropriate form and outlet as determined by appointment and audiences served.

Although most faculty members in the College of Agriculture and Life Sciences are appointed on a fiscal year or 12-month annual basis, many are appointed on an academic year or 9-month annual basis. Faculty members holding 9-month appointments cannot be expected to produce the same quantity of scholarly output as those holding 12-month appointments. Within the academic year, the performance of a 9-month appointee is expected to equal that of a 12-month appointee with the same distribution of appointment percentages. Differences in availability of support must be taken into account in any quantitative comparison between the scholarly outputs of 12- and 9-month faculty.

The rules are intended to identify areas to consider in evaluating faculty for reappointment, promotion, and tenure. Evaluation must be an on-going process that includes guidance, recommended changes, peer feedback, and sensitivity to the faculty member’s growth toward or away from his or her original capacity and position. There is no substitute for careful consideration of the standards that are most appropriate to the faculty member within a department, field, or discipline and the clear enunciation of those standards at that level as a specific guide for development and evaluation.

4. Standards for Reappointment as Assistant Professor

Based on the Statement of Mutual Expectations and the principles in Sections 2. A, B, C, and D, and Section 3, the candidate is expected to show progress toward goals, being promoted to associate professor with tenure and promise of future success toward the mission and needs of the college and university.

5. Standards for Associate Professor with Tenure

Based on the Statement of Mutual Expectations and the principles in Sections 2. A, B, C, and D, and Section 3, the candidate is expected to show progress toward goals and promise of future success in being promoted to professor. In addition they are expected to have established a strong record of accomplishments in their area of expertise, have peer recognition and be upholding of the mission of the college and university.

6. Standards for Professor

Based on the Statement of Mutual Expectations and the principles in Sections 2. A, B, C, and D, and Section 3, the candidate is expected to have documented success toward goals and promise of continuing success in the future. In addition they are expected to have established a record of accomplishments in their area of expertise. They are to have established an excellent reputation among their peers, both nationally and internationally, and be known as an expert in their field. In addition their efforts must support the college and university mission.

7. Procedures for RPT Review

7.1. Dossier Development and Submission

Departments are annually reminded of the deadline for promotion and tenure and reappointment dossiers, which is usually mid November to the CALS Personnel Office. The CALS Personnel Office checks for completeness and proper format.

7.2. College RPT Committee

The College of Agriculture and Life Sciences Reappointment, Promotion and Tenure Committee (CRPTC) is made up of eight members who serve for two years. Terms are staggered so four members are replaced each year. A chair is elected from within these eight members. The Dean requests each department with tenure-track faculty (except the four with returning members already on the committee) to elect a nominee for the College committee. The nominee must be a tenured Professor. The Dean, Directors and Associate Deans select the four new members from the elected nominees to assure the following standards are met.

The 8 CRPTC members must represent:

7.2.1) Three primary functions of teaching, research and extension

7.2.2) Major discipline categories of agricultural, life and social sciences

7.2.3) Diversity (gender and ethnicity) of our faculty.

A CRPTC member is not eligible to participate in the discussion or vote on a faculty member from their home department. In this case, their vote will be recorded as ineligible.

7.3. Department Heads and College Administrators Voting

Department Heads are not to be included in the department voting faculty (DVF). Their written assessment and recommendation will serve as their input. College administrators, who also hold tenured positions in departments, are not to vote in their home departments, but are to have input through consultation with the Dean.

7.4. CRPTC Review and Deans Recommendation

The dossiers are given to the CRPTC in November, and their decisions are completed in the first part of December. After the CRPTC has completed their written recommendation and voted, copies of the dossiers are made for the Dean and Associate Deans and are sent by the 2nd week in December. The Dean and Associate Deans individually review the dossiers. In early January, the Dean and Associate Deans confer, and the Dean writes his/her recommendation. There may be consultation with the department heads. The CRPTC’s written recommendation and vote and the Dean’s recommendation are provided to the candidate who is given five business days to respond with an optional written response. The Dean forwards the dossiers to the Provost with his recommendation for action, the CRPTC’s recommendation and vote, and any response from the candidate.

The Dean is not required to meet with the departmental faculty when he submits a recommendation that goes against their majority vote. Through the Head, the Dean’s recommendation is to be shared with the DVF.

Left Navigation