Department of Poultry Science - Reappointment, Promotion and Tenure Standards and Procedures

Department of Poultry Science
Reappointment, Promotion and Tenure Standards and Procedures

RUL 05.67.14

Reappointment, Promotion and Tenure
Print-friendly version

Authority: Provost and Executive Vice Chancellor

History: First Issued: June 1999. Last Revised: January 25, 2008. Additional History Information.

Contact Info: Department of Poultry Science, Ph. 919 515-2626

1. Introduction

The mission of North Carolina State University's 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. Within the College of Agriculture and Life Sciences, the Department of Poultry Science has a multidisciplinary research and educational function whose main objective is to help sustain the economical production of safe, high quality, high protein food for the human population. The Department's mission is: 1) the education and development of Poultry Science undergraduate and graduate students within the university community and citizens outside the university; 2) the advancement of knowledge concerning poultry biology, poultry products and their related disciplines through scientific inquiry and research, and 3) the organization and dissemination of new and existing knowledge through extension and outreach to the poultry industries and to the public at large. Our faculty primarily serve the citizens of North Carolina and the United States, but also the international community.

The Department Head and the Department's tenured faculty are responsible for reviewing faculty members' accomplishments in relation to their individual appointments and for then making recommendations to NC State Administrators with regard to all faculty member reappointments, promotions, and the conferral of tenure. The criteria, procedures, and other information in this document are intended as specific guidelines for faculty in the Department of Poultry Science with regard to reviews for reappointment, promotion in academic rank, and/or for the conferral of tenure. The information herein is supplementary to the NC State University Academic Tenure Policy, and it is consistent with the criteria set forth for the College of Agriculture and Life Sciences, as well as with the criteria set forth in the policy POL05.20.1 cited above.

Permanent tenure at any rank may be conferred only by action of the Board of Trustees.

Hereafter in this rule, "senior faculty" refers to tenured full professors, and "junior faculty" refers to tenured or tenure track assistant professors and tenured or tenure track associate professors.

2. Areas of Faculty Responsibility

The standards set forth for the evaluation of faculty performance described in this rule are interpreted within the context of the Department's Mission Statement as set forth at the beginning of the introduction. A faculty member, in general, will teach (profess) and contribute to the advancement of knowledge through scholarly inquiry. 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, as well as 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 as outlined in this rule.

As members of a learned profession, each faculty member has a tripartite responsibility: 1) to disseminate knowledge, whether through resident instruction, among peers, or to outreach students, including extension clientele; 2) to generate knowledge through scholarly activities; and 3) to provide service to the Department, College, University and profession. While the mix of one's appointment distribution (i.e., Resident Instruction, Research, Extension, International Programs, Administration) and job description are considered in any evaluation, each faculty member is expected to engage in teaching (addressing students and/or colleagues on the NC State campus, and/or outreach students and/or extension clientele) and have a quality and well focused research program.

These guidelines will apply uniformly to each faculty member. Consistent with the mission of this Land Grant University, the Department of Poultry Science recognizes no hierarchy of values among teaching (including extension), research and public service. All three areas will be considered in determining the overall contribution of the faculty member for annual performance reviews, and for the promotion and/or tenure process.

3. General Standards

Performance evaluations are used to make decisions concerning reappointments, promotions and the granting of tenure. Reappointments and promotion decisions depend upon both the quantity and the quality 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.

Because performance in teaching, research and service are difficult to assess, a variety of evaluation criteria will be employed. The Department of Poultry Science, like many other departments, has found that some criteria provide more accurate indicators of performance than others. Teaching quality will be based on peer evaluations, clientele reactions, soundly conducted student evaluations of teaching performance, and overall program impact. The primary indicators of a successful research program are manifested as contributions to knowledge and recorded in peer reviewed publications, development of solutions to problems, development of new and innovative production systems, new techniques, patents, etc.: as well as by grantsmanship; and recognition of excellence by peers. Recognition of how well a faculty member has contributed to his/her share of the faculty's collective service responsibilities, i.e. collegiality, must also be considered in recognition of performance and be judged in part by those served.

3.1. Performance Standards for the Evaluation of Teaching

Effective teaching is an essential responsibility of all faculty members in the Department. The quality of teaching is an explicit factor in the evaluation of faculty performance for merit salary increases, promotion and tenure. Teaching embraces two distinct functions: 1) resident instruction, and 2) outreach education including extension. Specific criteria exist for each.

3.1.1. Resident Instruction: Resident instruction includes undergraduate and graduate instruction in formal courses, seminars, and individual studies. Directing research is both a research and a teaching activity. Advising students, including academic and career counseling (graduate and undergraduate), is a service activity associated with teaching.

3.1.1a. To judge the effectiveness of resident instruction, faculty will be evaluated on:

1) Command of subject, including the incorporation of recent developments into resident instruction.

2) Continuous growth in subject matter.

3) Ability to organize and present class material with logic, conviction, and enthusiasm.

4) Objectivity.

5) Contributions to curricula development.

6) Creativity in course development, methods of presentation, and incorporation of new materials and ideas.

7) Capacity to awaken an awareness in students of the relationship between subjects studied and other fields of knowledge.

Each faculty member involved in the resident instruction program will be required to submit documentation annually to the Department Head concerning their performance in resident instruction. Evaluation of resident instruction will encompass several recent and consecutive teaching semesters. The quantitative components of one's teaching assignment (e.g. the number of courses, sections, labs, etc.; number of students and advisees; extracurricular assignments and advisor/mentorships) will be taken into account in the evaluation of teaching.

3.1.1b. To document instruction evaluation elements, the following criteria and procedures will be used:

1). Student input: Every student in each course will be provided the opportunity by the instructor to complete a confidential evaluation of the instruction, the instructor, and the course. Faculty may accompany the Departmental instruction evaluation form with evaluative instruments of their own design. While student evaluation forms are not required to be reviewed by the Department Head, it is the faculty member's responsibility to document his/her teaching performance via student input.

Exit interviews of all graduating seniors will be conducted by the Department Head to provide additional feedback on teaching performance, course adequacy, etc.

2). Self evaluation: The instructor should rate himself/herself with respect to the following points:

a) Command of the subject, including current developments.

b) Teaching at the appropriate level.

c) Organization of material.

d) Ability to communicate and teach with enthusiasm, conviction and logic.

e) Ability to convey to students the relationship between the subject studied and other fields of knowledge.

f) Requiring a level of expectation and work performance from students commensurate with the course level and course description.

3). Peer evaluation:

a) Evaluation of teaching by members of the Academic Affairs Committee, senior faculty, and/or the Department Head.

b) Evaluation of exams and course syllabus by members of the Academic Affairs Committee and the Department Head.

c) Evaluation of the testing instruments and level of expectation in line with the course level and course description by members of the Academic Affairs Committee and the Department Head.

d) Evaluation of course load with respect to the number of courses taught, sections taught, advisees, student credit hours taught, laboratories taught, TA oversight, trends in enrollment attributable to the quality of instruction, etc.

4). Other evidence of instruction performance and productivity: Recognition or awards for distinguished teaching. Publications authored, co-authored or edited.

a) Peer‑reviewed publications designed primarily to communicate with other educators, e.g. journal articles on curricula, course innovations, recruiting, and student placement.

b) Textbooks and chapters in textbooks or peer‑evaluated books.

c) Articles, papers, reviews, and other non‑reviewed class reading materials.

d) Updating instructional competence through workshops, study leaves, courses, industry visits, interaction with practitioners, and self‑study.

e) Leadership in development of courses and curricula that goes beyond normal teaching and service expectations.

f) Any other information which the candidate may wish to submit.

3.1.2. Outreach Education: Outreach education refers to planned educational activities by Departmental faculty that are directed primarily toward students/clientele outside the normal campus classroom. These are persons, other than professional peers, who are not enrolled in courses for academic credit, and include the general public. Outreach education encompasses, but is not limited to, educational activities conducted in conjunction with the Cooperative Extension Service. Faculty members with their primary appointment in Extension are expected to demonstrate contributions through creative analysis, published accounts of applied research and technology, and published review articles. In addition, they are expected to produce materials and programs that digest and reduce to practical application established scientific principles and research of others for poultry science clientele.

3.1.2a. Effective outreach education depends on:

1) An understanding of the needs for knowledge by outreach students and clientele.

2) A contemporary command over subject matter and the ability to glean from the subject matter what is useful for identifying and resolving problems.

3) Creativity in subject matter development, methods of presentation, and the incorporation of new ideas.

4) The ability to communicate effectively with outreach students, both orally and in writing.

5) The development of effective teaching programs and materials. The ability to anticipate the "teachable moment" regarding the needs of outreach students and to respond with appropriate educational activities.

3.1.2b. Performance in outreach education is evaluated in terms of:

1) The development and delivery of outreach education programs.

2) The development of teaching materials.

3) Publications.

4) Professional Society presentations.

5) Teaching.

6) Mediation of know1edge with the public.

7) Awards.

8) Achievement of leadership positions.

9) Unsolicited letters and evidence of program impact.

3.1.2c. Documentation of performance in the above nine categories includes the following:

1) Development and delivery of outreach education programs (lessons, courses, and curricula):

2) The number of outreach lessons or programs developed and the depth and breadth of the subject matter included.

3) The number and scope of courses of study (series of multiple lessons) developed.

4) Participation in the development of overall curricula of study (series of courses).

5) Involvement in program planning and development at the county, multi‑county, state, regional, national and international levels, including the development of proposals for program funding and success thereof.

6) Formal evaluations of extension meetings and programs and other outreach education activities.

7) Development of teaching materials for outreach education: The number and scope of written teaching plans or programs, discussion guides, and related educational materials for use in teaching and for adoption by other outreach educators such as field extension faculty, vocational agriculture instructors, and industry training personnel.

8) The number and scope of visual, audio, and computerized teaching aids (software), and evidence of use by other educators.

9) Publications authored, co‑authored, or edited: Peer‑evaluated publications designed primarily to communicate timely subject matter directly to outreach students and the general public, e.g., articles in citable news magazines, newspapers, trade journals, house organs of businesses and associations, newsletters, etc.

10) Professional and society publications, including volunteers and invited papers, presented before professional societies on the subject of Extension or outreach education.

11) Teaching: The number, subject matter, scope and depth, location of outreach education classes taught, and the number of students involved in each.

3.1.2d. Peer review of outreach teaching by:

1) Written assessment by other Departmental faculty members who have collaborated in team teaching.

2) Written assessment by the Extension coordinator, Department Head or designated representative on at least a biennial basis with input from extension administrators and district supervisors where appropriate.

3.1.2e. Purveyor of knowledge between the University and the public:

1) Utilization of print and broadcast media for knowledge dissemination to outreach students and the public at large.

2) Consultation with existing and potential users of outreach education, including farmers, industry and agribusiness operatives, leaders in agricultural and community organizations, and other educators, regarding problem recognition and the identification of on‑going and emerging needs and opportunities for outreach education on subjects within the faculty member's areas of expertise.

3) Recognition or awards for distinguished extension education:

4) Election to positions of leadership in organizations concerned with outreach education and participation in professional organizations associated with teaching and extension education.

5) Unsolicited letters from outreach students, including extension clientele, and others involved in outreach education.

3.2. Performance Standards for the Evaluation of Research

3.2.1. Conceptual Overview: Research productivity is the responsibility of each Department of Poultry Science faculty member, regardless of his/her budgetary appointment. Research and research projects must contribute to and be symbiotic with teaching, extension and service roles, and should not be viewed as an entity and obligation isolated from other academic functions. Research productivity takes many forms: theoretical innovation, the development of solutions through basic research, applied research, and empirical techniques, as well as through the creative application of existing concepts, knowledge, and empirical methods to problem solving. Each faculty member is expected to develop a research program, the depth of which reflects professional interests as well as Departmental goals (as expressed in the individual's position description and in other documents and correspondence as reviewed periodically). Each faculty member must develop a research focus area, i.e. claiming a research niche for which he/she is nationally and internationally recognized. Written accounts of research, particularly those which have been reviewed by peers, are the primary indicators of research productivity. For promotion and tenure purposes, especially, publication quality and usefulness must be assessed by employing indicators such as reprint requests, the science citation index, letters from peers, evidence that research has been adopted or has influenced peers, and users of research results. Other evidence that a faculty member is growing professionally and interacting constructively with students, colleagues, and the profession as a whole must be provided.

While the research program expectations (quantity) vary with one's appointment, the quality of one's research productivity should be high. Each faculty member should develop a primary research focus area ‑one that they should be known for, regardless of their appointment distribution.

3.2.2. Guidelines for the Evaluation of Research:

3.2.2a. Publications:

The following general hierarchy of research quality and productivity can be identified:

1) Peer reviewed articles, books and book chapters, monographs, and research bulletins based on original research have primary importance as evidence of research accomplishment.

2) Textbooks, edited volumes, and other materials that are intended primarily to be tools for instruction are judged as research output to the extent that they present new ideas or constitute conceptual or empirical innovation.

3) Review articles often require significant investigation on the part of the author and pass a careful peer review.

4) Published, invited and selected papers presented at professional meetings.

5) Other peer reviewed publications.

6) Citable publications and reports that are not peer reviewed (e.g. scientific and industry conference proceedings, workshop papers).

7) Book reviews written for journals reflect the author's status as a scholar, but may also represent research output.

8) Uncitable and unpublished papers and reports, if the author(s) can describe and demonstrate their quality and usefulness.

3.2.2b. Non-published Research Productivity:

1) Product development, germplasm releases, patents.

2) Invited and volunteered papers/poster presentations before professional societies.

3) Extramural funding awards and grant proposals.

4) Awards, professional recognitions.

3.2.2c. Other Scholarly Activities:

Among other indicators of the quality of a research program are impacts on policy and extension programs, consulting assignments (including program reviews of other departments and organizations), technical assistance on projects in developing countries, participation in and/or organization of panels and symposia at professional meetings, public lectures, development of computer software, enrollment in courses, professional leaves, and other kinds of self‑improvement, as well as mentoring of junior faculty. Faculty members are expected to provide evidence of these activities.

3.2.2d. Research Activities with Students:

Much of the research of a faculty member is done in conjunction with postdoctoral, graduate and sometimes undergraduate students. To some extent, students' accomplishments reflect faculty members' teaching efforts. However, the quality of students' work (e.g., dissertation awards, citations of a dissertation, publication of results, etc.), recruitment of graduate students, and demonstrated willingness and ability to supervise postdoctoral, graduate and undergraduate student research projects, and service on MS and Ph.D. committees also reflect on a faculty member's research program.

3.3. Performance Standards for the Evaluation of Service

3.3.1. Conceptual Overview: The Department of Poultry Science 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. However, a faculty member is expected to perform in each of the following major service categories, viz, administrative, student, professional, and technical.

3.3.2. Definition of Service: Service is defined as work done or duties performed for others at all levels within the University, and professional services to government, agribusiness, and professional associations at local, state, national and international levels. Personal service contributed to civic organizations, church, charities, community, and other organizations does not fall within the definition of professionally‑oriented service used herein, except where solicited or contributed in the role of one's faculty and/or professional status.

3.3.3. Service Categories and Criteria:

3.3.3a Administrative Services (includes, but not limited to the following):

1) Departmental Services ‑service as program coordinator and leader, member or chair of standing and ad hoc committees or task forces, and supervision of EPA and SPA employees.

2) College and University Service ‑serving on faculty governance, search, standing, special and interdisciplinary research committees, task forces, reviewing materials, assisting at the administrative level for international and other programs.

3.3.3b. Student Services ‑(includes, but not limited to the following):

1) Advising undergraduates, student clubs or other organizations, serving on the CALS Honors Committee, serving on curriculum committee's (i.e. for the department, college or interdepartmental graduate program), serving on advisory committees of graduate students, serving on the advisory committees of graduate students in other departments, serving on graduate school exam committees, serving university student related committees (e.g. , Teaching Effectiveness and Evaluation). Chairmanship or co-chairmanships of such committees will receive more credit than membership alone.

3.3.3c. Professional Services (includes, but not limited to the following):

1) Officers, editorial boards, committees, and task forces of professional associations; reviewing external manuscripts; regional and national research, teaching and extension committees; state and local task forces; state and local advisory committees; industry advisory committees and industry task forces. Service to trade (clientele) organizations (e.g., officer of a trade association, executive secretary of a trade association); member of board(s) of directors; consulting assignments; community service where professional expertise is rendered, e.g. judging activities, speaking on behalf of the University or profession.

3.3.3d. Peer Responsibilities (includes, but not limited to the following):

1) Reviewing course outlines, course syllabi, internal manuscripts, internal and external research proposals, and fund seeking proposals; regional and national project writing committees; data collection and sample design, assisting students and other faculty with computer, quantitative and modeling problems, and design of instruments for teaching evaluation and participation in teaching evaluation.

3.4. Ability to Work With Others:

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.

4. Standards for Reappointment as Assistant Professor

Reappointment to the level of assistant professor will require the faculty member involved to show 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 Statement of Mutual Expectation and the Plan for Professional Development Plan that the candidate must develop during his/her first year at the University. 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 another scholarly or germane creativity.

4.2. Potentials for the directing of classroom or extension-type teaching, extension programs with industry clientele, applied and/or basic research, and graduate programs.

4.3. Ability and willingness to participate in University, industry and/or professional organization affairs.

4.4. A doctor's degree or equivalent professional experience.

5. Standards for Associate Professor With Tenure

Recommendations for appointment to the level of Associate Professor with tenure will be made in relation to the candidate's appointment 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 involved to show 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 Statement of Mutual Expectation and the Plan for Professional 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, and must include the types of evidence outlined in Section III of this document. At a minimum appointment to the associate professor level with tenure 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 assignment.

5.2. Clearly documented achievements, as appropriate for the individual's appointment, that demonstrate 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 appointment, active participation and leadership of graduate programs, and/or leadership of appropriate extension programs

5.3. Clear service type contributions to department, college, university and professional affairs.

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

5.5. A doctor's degree, an equivalent degree, or equivalent professional experience.

6. Standards for Professor

Recommendations for appointment to the level of Professor will be made in relation to the candidate's appointment 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 both a national and international 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, and must include the types of evidence outlined in Section III of this document. At a minimum appointment to the professor level will require:

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

6.2. Clearly documented ability, as appropriate for 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 appointment, continued active participation and leadership of graduate programs, and/or continued leadership of appropriate extension programs

6.3. Clear service type contributions to department, college, university and at the national and international level for professional affairs.

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

6.5. A doctor's degree, an equivalent degree, or equivalent professional experience.

7. Procedures for RPT Review

In compliance with Section 6 of the NCSU Academic Tenure Policy (POL05.20.1), the Department Head will consult with the senior faculty of the Department in arriving at recommendations for: (1) initial appointment at the rank of assistant professor, associate professor, or professor; (2) reappointment, promotion and the conferral of permanent tenure for assistant to associate professor; and for (3) promotions to professor. The senior faculty shall consist of all tenured associate and tenured full professors in the Department for the consideration of the reappointment and promotion and tenure of assistant professors. All tenured full professors will be involved in the review of associate professors who are being considered for promotion to the level of professor.

The Department's annual RPT process will start early in the calendar year with a memo from the Department Head to all faculty who will be up for reappointment, promotion and/or tenure review during the fall of the same calendar year. That memo will include a rough schedule of the critical deadlines for the impending review. All faculty members involved will be asked to meet with the Department Head and the Department's Extension Leader (if the individual has an extension appointment) in June of the year involved to review and update their statements of Mutual Expectation and Self-evaluation, and to begin the documentation process. They will also be asked to provide a list of at least 5 individuals from outside of the University whom they believe would be able to provide a written evaluation of their program. The Department Head, in consultation with the Department's Executive Committee (consisting of the Head, the Extension Leader, the Academic Affairs Leader, the Undergraduate Teaching Coordinator, and the Graduate Program Chair) will also develop a list of individuals from outside of the University who would in their estimation have the ability to provide such evaluations. At least three individuals from each of these lists will then be chosen by the Department Head, and evaluations will be requested from them by no later than August 1 to be sent to the Department Head by no later than September 15.

With regard to outside letters for faculty with extension appointments, external evaluation letters from clients may be included, but the total number of client evaluation letters must be less than 50% of the total number of evaluation letters. So, if the candidate has five or six letters from external evaluators, only two may be from clients.

The Faculty member involved will be expected to have all of their documentation in place by September 15. The RPT review committee meetings will take place between September 15 and October 20, and will be scheduled by the Department Head. The Head will assign two of the senior faculty to develop the written assessment from the Department's RPT Committee for each candidate, and will inform the RPT Committee members of their assignment. One of the two will be assigned as Chair for each candidate, and the Chair will be expected to write the final document in consultation with the other member, which must include a listing of the eligible RPT faculty members present and who were involved in the review discussions. The vote will be by paper ballot, and will be counted by the Chair and reported to the committee, the Head and the candidate. Faculty who are out of the state or out of the country at the time of the candidate's review may either abstain, or they may vote by providing their written comments and vote to the candidate's RPT Review Chair. Since the Department of Poultry Science's RPT Committee reviews all non-tenured faculty annually, all RPT Committee members have plenty of opportunities other than at the final review meeting to be well aware of the progress or lack of progress of all non-tenured faculty, and therefore, to provide feedback and know whether or not the individual is meeting expectations. Thus, all faculty members are expected to vote regardless of whether they can be at the candidate's review meeting.

The Department Head will participate in each candidate's review discussion, but will not vote. He/she will provide his/her vote via the Department Head's assessment in the dossier and recommendation on the cover form that goes forward with the review.

The candidate will be informed of the progress of the review as outlined in the University policy.

Left Navigation