Skip to main content

Below are the Policies and Procedures for Personnel actions in the Department of Romance Studies.
The contents are copied here for reference and ease of navigation.
The original, approved documents may be found at the bottom of this page.

General Guidelines on Faculty Personnel Actions

PART I. Policies for tenure-track and tenured faculty

I. Introduction

The principal aims of the Department of Romance Studies are to preserve, increase, and transmit knowledge and understanding of the Romance languages, literature, and cultures within the global and regional contexts in which they have developed. These aims are furthered by the scholarly activity of the faculty and by their teaching and training of undergraduate and graduate students. The Department of Romance Studies is a diverse, multicultural, and plurilingual academic unit that engages in research and instruction in French, Italian, Portuguese, and Spanish, and in the historical minority languages of Europe and the Americas. In hiring and promoting faculty, the department seeks to maintain its high standards of scholarship and teaching by continuing its commitment to intellectual innovation and diversity. It also encourages service to the department, the University, the professional community, the state, the nation and the world; as appropriate, it also encourages engagement with groups outside academia. The Department of Romance Studies seeks to be objective, fair, and honest in matters of hiring and promotion. It reaffirms at this time its goal of quality combined with diversity. All hiring and promotion takes place within the context of departmental needs and resources. The department subscribes wholeheartedly to the guidelines of Affirmative Action and commits itself to make personnel decisions with justice to both the University and the individuals concerned.

The Department’s policies are subject to those set forth in the following University publications. The most recent edition of each document takes precedence.

  1. The Code, Board of Governors, UNC
  2. Trustee Policies and Regulations Governing Academic Tenure in the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (October 20, 2009 edition)
  3. The Faculty Code of University Government, the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill 
  4. Affirmative Action Plan, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill 
  5. Personnel Policies for Academic Personnel, Office of the Executive Vice Chancellor & Provost
  6. College of Arts & Sciences Chair’s Manual
  7. Memorandum from the Dean on Peer Faculty Teaching Observations for Tenure, Promotion and Post-Tenure Review, August 21, 2012.

This departmental document is supplemental to and subject to, the policies found in the above publications. Each faculty member has the responsibility to become familiar with their provisions.

back to top

II. Standards

The Department, College, and University continually aspire to enhance their academic stature. Such stature is achieved primarily through the continual recruitment, development, and retention of outstanding faculty.

The standards that this Department applies to the evaluation of candidates are qualitative and cannot be expressed quantitatively. Therefore, they inescapably entail subjective judgment. As a result, it is not possible to reduce the evaluation of academic personnel to a purely objective enumeration of expected accomplishments within a specific period of time.

The Department may recommend a candidate for promotion and/or permanent tenure before the expiration of his or her probationary term if the quality of the candidate’s record meets the standards and makes a compelling case for an early recommendation. A candidate’s prior record in a tenure track or equivalent position at another institution of higher education may form part of a compelling case for an early recommendation.

Prerequisite to the appointment or reappointment of any candidate is the continuing need by the Department, College and University for the services that he or she, as a scholar-teacher in a particular field, is qualified to carry out. An appointment of an individual to a tenure-track position is based on the belief that the appointment meets a continuing need for the department. However, where this need is found not to exist, or has disappeared or may disappear, or where program change or curtailment of funding obliges the University to discontinue support, appointment or reappointment is precluded.

Quality research, teaching excellence and a commitment to service are important areas of evaluation of faculty by the Department of Romance Studies. In addition to long-standing criteria for such evaluation, innovative faculty work in these areas should also be considered when germane. Thus, tenure and promotion guidelines must balance the need for precedent and consistency with openness to new approaches and ideas for which establishing criteria for evaluation may be difficult, at least at first. Candidates for promotion and their departments share the responsibility for effectively evaluating innovative contributions. Candidates should help articulate the nature and value of their new work. Departments should continually educate themselves on the changing landscape of the profession, and they should consider when to seek evaluations of the candidate’s work that inform and can help explain particular innovations. Some of the prominent areas in which innovation occurs include engagement, digital technologies, and interdisciplinarity.

As a public university, we recognize the importance of faculty engagement. Engagement may be embedded in one or more aspects of a faculty member’s research, teaching, and service activities. Faculty engagement refers to scholarly, creative, pedagogical, and service activities directed toward persons and groups outside UNC Chapel Hill and outside the usual spheres of professional academic work. Such activities typically take the form of collaborative interactions, include partners outside the University, and seek to enhance the “public good” or “public life” of the state, nation, or wider world.
When present, engagement should be recognized as a significant component of a faculty member’s professional achievements. Engagement may play a more prominent role in different phases of a faculty member’s career, and it should be supported at any phase if it is consistent with our department’s practices and priorities. However, faculty whose work does not include engaging activities should not be penalized or denied tenure or promotion on those grounds.

Digital technologies are reshaping every profession. Digital technologies shape not only how we communicate new knowledge, but also how we perceive and develop knowledge in the first place. Since digital technologies influence, every aspect of professional life including research, teaching and service, the Department of Romance Studies should, therefore, regularly evaluate this changing landscape. Candidates for promotion or tenure should help explain the nature and impact of their digital work in their research statements.

Interdisciplinary work provides opportunities for creating knowledge in new and unanticipated ways, often representing cutting-edge scholarship and teaching. Since many challenges and problems require skills and perspectives from multiple academic and professional disciplines, evidence of innovative inter- and cross-disciplinary research, teaching, and service should, therefore, be valued in a candidate’s promotion and tenure dossier, and the candidate should describe and explain the merits of his or her interdisciplinary work in the research statement.

General Standards. The following standards will be employed in evaluations for reappointment, promotion, and tenure:

  1. A demonstrated commitment to, and achievement of, research excellence or its equivalent form in artistic performance and creative activity as appropriate to certain disciplines is required for consideration for tenure and/or promotions in rank.
  2. A demonstrated commitment to, and achievement of, teaching excellence is required for consideration of tenure decisions and/or promotions in rank, and while its presence without the other two general standards also being met will not bring tenure or promotion, its absence is sufficient to deny tenure or promotion.
  3. Service to the Department, University, community, state, nation and the world, and to one’s academic profession is a further, additional consideration in the overall assessment of a faculty colleague. Service is not a substitute for excellence in research and excellence in teaching.

back to top

Standards of Research

The Department of Romance Studies expects its faculty to be actively involved throughout their careers in achieving scholarly research excellence.

A scholarship is understood as the meaningful contribution to intellectual discourse within a scholarly community. It may take the form of original research projects or the development of new tools for research.

Publication is the primary means of communicating scholarship and of ensuring its value, quality, and/or relevance to the scholarly community. The Department of Romance Studies requires such publication as an obvious way of extending knowledge and of sharing scholarly investigation with a wider audience.

At the same time, the Department insists on regarding the quality of the publication is more important than quantity. The quality of publications can be assessed by a variety of criteria which may include the selectivity of scholarly journals, presses, and conferences, the rigor of the peer review process, and/or citation counts and other measures of impact on the field, as appropriate.

Engaged scholarship refers to research on projects that include collaborative interactions with partners outside the University and outside the usual spheres of professional academic work. In order to satisfy the criterion for engaged scholarship, the faculty member’s work must meet rigorous standards. In our Department, the criteria for evaluating the quality of engaged scholarship external competitive funding, publication of findings in peer-reviewed journals or books, and evaluations by experts in the field.

The Department of Romance Studies recognizes faculty who conduct or publish their research digitally for their innovation and for moving beyond traditional formats. The standard for excellence is the same for digital and non-digital work and may include influence on a scholarly field, rigorous peer reviews or other evaluation by experts in the area. The overall quality and contribution of the work must be measured against the University’s long-standing high standards, which should be independent of the mode or medium of publication.

The research of faculty engaged in innovative interdisciplinary research shall be given formal consideration and due credit, although the overall quality and contribution of the interdisciplinary work should be measured through appropriate means against the University’s well-established high standards. For faculty with interdisciplinary interests hired within the Department of Romance Studies, the main criteria for review and judgment lie within, rather than outside, our discipline broadly defined. In the case of joint appointments, reviews must include multi-departmental evaluations. For faculty hired as joint appointees, the main criteria for review and judgment of a faculty member’s scholarly work shall encompass work across the units of appointment and related interdisciplinary work, assessed by appropriate high standards.

back to top

Standards of Teaching

The Department of Romance Studies expects and encourages teaching of the highest quality. Although it is not possible to enumerate here all criteria of highly effective teaching, such teachers prepare their courses with discrimination and skill. They responsibly formulate the objectives of the courses and use imaginative pedagogical methods to achieve their goals. Effective teachers engage their students, stimulate their interests, broaden their perspectives and improve their thinking. To the extent that it is possible, they also make their students active rather than passive participants in the learning process. Excellent teachers demand substantial accomplishment and high standards of work, grade all work fairly, and base what they teach on evidence and sound method. They are articulate, resourceful, and reflective. In addition, where appropriate, such teachers conscientiously provide advice and guidance to both graduate and undergraduate students on an individual basis, direct theses and dissertations, and serve on committees that critically examine and evaluate such research projects. In short, the Department expects colleagues to be generously involved in teaching and training.

Engaged teaching refers to pedagogical practices that typically take students outside the traditional classroom. Such teaching may include courses that help students engage with non-academic communities, participate in service learning programs, or interact with public schools and government policymakers. To satisfy the criterion for “engaged teaching” and for engaged teaching to be considered in evaluations for reappointment, promotion, and tenure, the faculty member’s courses should include analytical and reflective components and carry academic credit. Such teaching should be evaluated by students, by academic peers, and also by individuals who participate in these courses from a position outside the University.

One of the most prominent areas of recent pedagogical innovation is the integration of digital technologies within the traditional classroom as well as online. When faculty members employ new technologies to enhance teaching and learning, evaluation of teaching excellence should include assessments of this use.

Evaluation of teaching excellence should also consider faculty contributions to different forms of interdisciplinary teaching. Such endeavors greatly enhance the intellectual life of the University and provide a sense of common purpose and community among students and faculty. All levels and forms of interdisciplinary teaching should, therefore, be considered, including interdisciplinary teaching within one’s home unit; participation in team-taught, multidisciplinary courses that transcend the Department and unit boundaries; undergraduate, graduate and post-doctoral mentoring; and involvement in cross-disciplinary learning experiences outside the University. As with all forms of teaching, rigorous standards of evaluation should be applied.

back to top

Standards of Service

A service assignment should be pursued diligently, imaginatively, and responsibly, with concern for deadlines and appropriate results. Conscientious and efficient performance combined with collegiality, tact, and resourcefulness bring credit to the individual and the Department and will be recognized.

Assistant and associate professors without permanent tenure are expected to undertake those service functions the Department Chair may assign. Although they should focus primarily on teaching and research, untenured members of the Department will be called upon to perform a number of service activities such as directing Honors theses, work on departmental, University, and professional organization committees, and organizing lectures, workshops, and other events. Associate Professors with tenure and professors may be expected to undertake a wider range of service functions.

Engaged service refers to activities that are informed by the faculty member’s scholarly expertise and include interactions with groups and projects outside the professional and scholarly organizations of academia. In the Department of Romance Studies, we value engaged service related to the faculty member’s professional expertise, such as research and educational contributions to immigration and integration issues, diversity, and the status of marginal groups in society, community activities, and curricular innovations.

Groups and communities increasingly connect and identify themselves through online resources, electronic networks, virtual spaces and social media. Therefore, in the Department of Romance Studies, faculty service involving digital technologies may be recognized as an important contribution to academic life and to communities outside the University. Candidates for promotion or tenure should help articulate the nature of their contribution in this area.

Faculty may be involved in interdisciplinary service in one, two or more units, depending on the nature of their appointment(s) or interdisciplinary approach. In cases of interdisciplinary service, the Department of Romance Studies, the other units involved and the faculty member will establish standards and expectations clarifying the extent of service expected from the faculty member for the Department and the other unit(s). These standards and expectations shall be reviewed, evaluated and, if necessary, modified on a regular basis. The same general standards of evaluation shall be employed for interdisciplinary service as for service within a single unit.

back to top

III. Criteria for Specific Personnel Actions

The projected needs and resources of the Department, the College, and the University shall be considered in recommending initial appointments, reappointments, promotions to associate professor with tenure, and promotion to full professor.

 

Instructor with Special Provision

The candidate approved by the Department to be recommended for an appointment as an assistant professor but who, when approved, is still completing a doctoral dissertation, will be recommended for an appointment as instructor for one year with the special provision that upon conferral of the doctorate he or she will be reappointed at the rank of assistant professor, and with the further provision that the effective date of his or her appointment at the rank of assistant professor will be retroactive to the effective date of his or her current appointment as instructor, or to the July 1 or January 1 immediately preceding the date of conferral. Such an appointment will carry the title “instructor with a special provision.”

back to top

Assistant Professor

The rank of assistant professor denotes a tenure-track position, with an initial appointment for four years, the possibility of reappointment for three additional years, and a review for the conferral of tenure and promotion to the rank of associate professor.

1. Standards for initial appointment

A Clear promise of excellence in teaching and scholarship and completion of all requirements for the doctorate or other terminal degree and the degree’s conferral is required.

2. Reappointment for a second probationary term

The initial review and recommendation for reappointment occur by the end of the third year of the initial probationary appointment. For an assistant professor already serving in the Department, reappointment is based on evidence of (a) a demonstrated commitment to, and promise of or achievement of, research excellence, (b) a demonstrated commitment to, and promise of or achievement of, teaching excellence, and (c) appropriate service to the Department.

back to top

Associate Professor

Initial appointment to a rank of associate professor may be with or without tenure. Promotion to associate professor always confers tenure. Except as otherwise provided under University policy, tenure is a permanent commitment by the Department, the College, and the University. Recommendation for tenure requires a judgment not only about the past and present achievements of the candidate but also about his or her potential for future achievements. While emphasizing proven excellence in research and teaching, the Department remains very much concerned, in questions of tenure, that a person shows promise of continuing achievement in all three areas: research, teaching, and service. A recommendation for promotion and/or tenure by the Department Chair requires a careful assessment informed by outside references about the qualifications of the candidate and the professional judgment of the assembled full professors; the professional judgment of the tenured associate professors is also considered.

In evaluating past performance, present achievements, and promise for the future, the following factors will be considered:

  1. The candidate must have demonstrated continuous research excellence by producing a body of research of demonstrable value to the field that is openly available, scholarly, creative, of high quality and significance, and visible and recognized within his or her domain of research. In addition to books, peer reviewed articles and book chapters, the research may include work in the digital humanities, in its design, construction, and growth. The candidate must also have demonstrated a commitment to continued research excellence.
  2. The candidate must have demonstrated a commitment to teaching excellence in both undergraduate and graduate teaching and must have achieved excellence in one or more types of teaching as reflected in teaching materials and student and peer evaluations.
  3. Service to the Department, University, community, state, nation, and the world, and to one’s academic profession is a further, additional consideration in the overall assessment. The faculty member as a University citizen should actively participate in advancing the interests of the Department, the College, and the University through service in the larger community and the profession. The candidate must be recognized as a helpful and valued colleague, one who willingly and conscientiously performs needed service.
  4. The Department will decide whether to recommend tenure following an initial appointment as an associate professor on the basis of the criteria outlined above for promotion to associate professor. With the written advance approval of the Dean, an associate professor appointed from outside the Department may be recommended for an initial appointment with tenure if the quality of the candidate’s record meets the standards.

back to top

Full Professor

Appointment to the rank of full professor confers tenure. A candidate for full professor should have made significant contributions in the field beyond those expected of an associate professor with tenure.

Recommendation for promotion to the rank of full professor requires a judgment not only about the past and present achievements of the candidate but about his or her potential for future achievements. A recommendation for promotion to full professor by the Department Chair requires a careful assessment informed by outside references about the qualifications of the candidate and the professional judgment of the full professors.

In evaluating past performance, present achievements, and promise for the future, the following factors will be considered:

  1. The candidate must have a record of sustained research and high-quality publication and distinctive achievements to have gained significant recognition in the field nationally, and if appropriate, internationally.
  2. The candidate must have demonstrated a commitment to, and achievement of, teaching excellence at both the undergraduate and graduate levels.
  3. The candidate must have a sustained record of service that demonstrates constructive contributions to the Department, the University, and the profession; a similar demonstration of capacity for such contributions to the community, state, nation, and the world is also valued.

back to top

Full Joint Tenure-Track and Tenured Appointments

In order to be recommended for a joint tenure-track or tenured appointment in the Department of Romance Studies, a faculty member must meet the standards for the rank for which he or she is being considered and must simultaneously meet the standards for the same rank in another department, so that he or she may hold the same rank in both departments. A joint tenure-track or tenured appointment in the Department of Romance Studies is an honor and not a right or extended as a courtesy. The projected needs and resources of the departments and the University shall be considered in initiating or approving joint tenure-track or tenured appointments. Policies pertaining to these appointments differ from those for appointments across departments or units in which the faculty member holds a tenure-track or tenured appointment in one of the departments or units and holds a fixed term (i.e., adjunct) appointment in another.

back to top

General Recruiting Procedures

The Department of Romance Studies follows University and College recruiting policies and procedures. For further details, see the Provost’s website and the College of Arts & Sciences Chair’s Manual.

 

IV. Summary of Procedural Steps (not applicable for fixed-term appointments)

 

Policies identified here are supplemental to and subject to, the policies found in the most recent versions of the publications listed in the Introduction. A separate department document on “Supplemental Policies on Faculty Personnel Actions: Procedures for Appointments, Reappointments and Promotion in the Department of Romance Studies” (Revised April 2013) provides additional procedural information.

Letters of recommendation. Outside letters of evaluation constitute an important part of the appointment, promotion and tenure packet. A minimum of four letters of evaluation is required.

For appointments of assistant professors and instructors with special provision, these letters should be preferably from outside the institution, and also preferably from research universities with very high research activity (RU/VH institutions). They may include letters from mentors and other individuals more closely connected to the candidate.

In the case of promotion and tenure packets, it is required that all four of the outside letters of evaluation be from outside the institution and that all be from individuals independent of the candidate. Two of the four letters must be from a list of names provided by the candidate and two of the four from individuals selected by the Department Chair. Ideally, all of the letters should come from individuals at research universities with very high research activity (RU/VH institutions). If in the Chair’s view, the most appropriate reviewer is from a university or other institution that is not a research university with very high research activity (RU/VH institutions), the Chair’s letter should provide an explanation for the choice of reviewer. The goal is to obtain a letter from the person who will give the most discriminating review and unbiased assessment of the individual’s national and international reputation. Therefore, the request from the Department Chair to prospective writers of outside letters of evaluation should be phrased neutrally and should not solicit an affirmative response or recommendation.

The letters may not be from individuals who have worked directly with the candidate, e.g., as a collaborator, mentor, previous co-worker, or former dissertation chair, but may be from individuals who know the candidate through professional interactions, e.g., having reviewed the candidate’s publications or served on review committees together.

In addition to the minimum four required independent letters, any number of additional letters from any responsible source may also be submitted. These may be from individuals within the institution with whom the candidate has collaborated or from former colleagues, collaborators, mentors, or other individuals connected with the candidate.

All letters of evaluation that are received must be made an official part of any appointment, promotion, and tenure package and must be part of the evaluation process of the candidate under consideration. In the appointment/promotion packet, each outside letter should have a designation in its upper right-hand corner indicating whether the writer of the letter was suggested by the candidate or was chosen by the Department Chair.

The dossier. The Department of Romance Studies will employ the guide provided by the Appointments, Promotion and Tenure Committee of the University in completing the candidate’s dossier for review for faculty reappointments, promotions and tenure.

Notification. Untenured assistant and associate professors should be notified in writing at least three months prior to the start of the scheduled review. Tenured associate professors should be notified in writing at least six months prior to the start of the scheduled review because that scheduled review also constitutes the University’s post tenure review which requires six months’ notice. The notification should include the requirements for the dossier the faculty member must submit for evaluation.

Timing of review. No recommendation for a promotion or reappointment which under the provisions of the Tenure Regulations will confer permanent tenure may be initiated until the faculty member has been in the active employment of the University for at least 18 months. No such recommendation may be initiated which would have an effective date later than 18 months after its initiation.

Review and consultation. Proceedings for promotion to associate professor with tenure or to full professor are initiated by recommendation of the Department Chair “after consultation with the assembled full professors of that department” (Trustees’ Policies and Regulations Governing Academic Tenure, May 2004, p. 5). Any department charged with evaluating a candidate and making a recommendation regarding the reappointment of an assistant professor, conferral of tenure and promotion to associate professor or promotion to full professor may utilize an ad hoc or special committee to review the candidate and present a report to the assembled voting faculty. If this committee prepares a written evaluation of the candidate, that report must be included in the candidate’s dossier. The Department’s assembled voting faculty must include at least four full professors. If a department has fewer than four full professors, a standing advisory committee including additional full professors shall be named by the Dean of the College in consultation with the Chair to advise the Chair in personnel matters.

The departmental vote must be recorded and reported by rank and must list the number of votes in support and opposition, as well as any abstentions. No faculty member may vote on the question of reappointment, tenure and/or promotion for another faculty member of the same or higher rank. Tenured associate professors, therefore, may not vote for conferral of tenure or promotion for another associate professor.

back to top

Assistant Professor

Tenure Track Assistant Professors (Third-Year Reviews).

Initial appointment to the rank of assistant professor is for a probationary term of four years. No less than 12 months before the end of this term, the assistant professor must be notified in writing whether he or she will be recommended for a second probationary term of three years or not reappointed.

The Department’s assembled voting faculty shall review the assistant professor’s scholarship, teaching, and service. Outside letters of evaluation are not required for reappointment. It is a University requirement that the Chair consults the “assembled full professors” of the unit before acting upon a recommendation. In the Department of Romance Studies, that discussion is followed by a vote of the assembled full professors and tenured associate professors regarding the proposed reappointment. The faculty’s vote is advisory to the Chair, who either recommends reappointment or decides against reappointment.

If the Chair decides against reappointment at the end of the initial probationary term, the assistant professor shall be notified in writing of the Chair’s decision no less than 12 months before his or her current term ends. A faculty member has the right to an administrative conference with the Chair and, if necessary, with the Dean of the College, along with such other appeal rights as are afforded under the “Trustee Policies and Regulations Governing Academic Tenure in the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.”

back to top

 Review for Promotion to Associate Professor with Tenure

Assistant professors are reviewed during their sixth year for promotion to associate professor with tenure, non-reappointment, or (under exceptional circumstances) reappointment at the rank of assistant professor with permanent tenure.

If the assistant professor receives permanent tenure at that same rank, he or she must be reviewed every five years to meet the post-tenure review requirement of the University and is eligible to be reviewed for promotion on the same schedule.

The Department’s assembled voting faculty shall review the assistant professor’s scholarship, teaching, and service. Outside letters of evaluation are required for promotion to associate professor with tenure. It is a University requirement that the “assembled full professors” of the unit meet to discuss and vote on a recommendation. In the Department of Romance Studies, that discussion is followed by a vote of the assembled full professors and tenured associate professors regarding the proposed promotion to associate professor with tenure. The faculty’s vote is advisory to the Chair, who either recommends promotion to associate professor with tenure or decides against reappointment.

If the Chair decides against reappointment at the end of the second probationary term, the assistant professor shall be notified in writing of the Chair’s decision no less than 12 months before his or her current term ends. A faculty member has the right to an administrative conference with the Chair and, if necessary, with the Dean of the College, along with such other appeal rights as are afforded under the “Trustee Policies and Regulations Governing Academic Tenure in the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.”

back to top

Associate Professor, Full Professor, and Post-Tenure Review

Untenured Associate Professor.

Initial appointment to the rank of untenured associate professor is for the probationary term of five years. An untenured associate professor is reviewed no later than the fourth year of this probationary term since no less than 12 months before the end of this term, the associate professor must be notified in writing whether he or she will be reappointed with tenure, promoted to professor, or recommended for non-reappointment.

The Department’s assembled voting faculty shall review the untenured associate professor’s scholarship, teaching, and service. Outside letters of evaluation are required for appointment as an associate professor with tenure, or for an appointment as full professor, which confers tenure. It is a University requirement that the Chair consults with the “assembled full professors” of the unit before acting upon a recommendation. The faculty’s vote is advisory to the Chair, who either recommends tenure (and, if also being considered, promotion to full professor) or decides against tenure (and if also being considered, promotion to full professor).

back to top

Full Professor.

An associate professor who has completed five years and has been reappointed at the same rank with tenure must be reviewed every five years to meet the post-tenure review requirement of the University and is eligible to be reviewed for possible promotion to full professor on the same schedule. Since the University’s Tenure Regulations were revised, effective July 1, 2004, it has been possible for reviews for promotion to full professor and post-tenure reviews for tenured associate professors to take place simultaneously.

Every five years, associate professors with tenure must have an internal review that constitutes their required post-tenure review. If the faculty member wishes to be considered for promotion to full professor at that time, then recommendation letters from outside the institution are solicited as part of that review. If the faculty member does not wish to be reviewed for possible promotion at that time, only the internal review is carried out.

The Department’s assembled voting faculty shall review the tenured associate professor’s scholarship, teaching, and service. Outside letters of evaluation are required for promotion to full professor. It is a University requirement that the Chair consults with the “assembled full professors” of the unit before acting upon a recommendation. The faculty’s vote is advisory to the Chair, who either recommends promotion to full professor or decides against promotion.

back to top

Out of cycle reviews.

If a tenured associate professor, with the concurrence of the Department, wishes to be considered for review for early promotion before his/her scheduled five-year review, an out-of-cycle review may take place. If the faculty member requests a full out-of-cycle review and the full professors believe that not enough has been done to warrant consideration for promotion, the Chair has the right to recommend denying the request on the advice of the full professors. The Chair must give the reasons for recommending denial and communicate these reasons to the faculty member in writing.

back to top

Post-Tenure Review.

Since 1997, a post-tenure review has been mandated by UNC General Administration on orders from the Board of Governors in response to a directive of the NC General Assembly that a system of periodic review of the performance of tenured faculty be implemented. Our Department has a separate set of post-tenure review policies. Post-tenure review applies to all tenured faculty, except as otherwise specified by University or College policy with regard to its timing for faculty who are department chairs, senior associate deans, and deans.

back to top 

Untenured Faculty Annual Review

The Department Chair must perform evaluations of untenured assistant and associate professors every year. These evaluations are especially important for setting goals, clarifying expectations, and providing mentoring. After meeting with the untenured faculty member, the Chair must write a report of the evaluation, provide a copy to the faculty member in question, and place one in his or her personnel file.

The evaluation should provide a clear assessment of the faculty member’s work that year in research, teaching, and service. It should be clear about goals on which the untenured professor and the Chair agree. It should not explicitly comment on or venture a prediction regarding any later decision to grant tenure to the faculty member. On the contrary, the evaluation should include a disclaimer: “This evaluation is not an indication of the likelihood of a positive or negative recommendation regarding tenure but rather summarizes and assesses the activities in which you have been engaged for the past year.” The Dean’s Office should be notified when these reviews are completed.

back to top

 

Part II. Policies on Fixed-Term Faculty

Instructions regarding completion of this Part II will be provided at a later date.

back to top

 


Specific Procedures for Tenure Track Faculty

In case of conflicts between this “Procedures” section and the “General Policies on Faculty Personnel Actions,” the “Policies” take precedence.

back to top

I. Procedures for Making Initial Appointments

  1. After consulting with the faculty about the needs and priorities of their individual programs and writing a description of the position(s) that meets with their approval, the Department Chair will communicate those needs to the Dean of the College, who must authorize any search to fill a permanent position. After gaining the Dean’s approval, the Department Chair will appoint an ad hoc committee for each search. The Faculty Review Committee will nominate seven faculty members for each search committee, and the Department Chair is free to establish ad hoc search committees composed of these nominees or of other individuals. The search committee or committees will include members who represent both the specialty of the position to be filled and the general interests of the Department. The Department Chair will designate the chair of the ad hoc committee. All searches will be conducted in compliance with the policies and procedures of the College of Arts and Sciences and the Equal Opportunity/ADA Office.
  2. Once constituted, the ad hoc search committee will review the advertisement and evaluate applications. After studying the dossiers and, when appropriate, the publications of the applicants, the ad hoc search committee will submit to the Department Chair in writing the names of an appropriate number of candidates for consideration. Interviews will be conducted during an annual convention or by video conference. As far as possible, a majority of the members of the search committee will be present during each interview. The search committee will then choose an appropriate number of strongly qualified candidates to invite to the campus. During the visit, each candidate will have ample opportunity to meet the members of the professorial staff in the relevant language area, other members of the professorial staff, and graduate students. If appropriate based on policies established by the College, an interview with the Senior Associate Dean also will be scheduled. Candidates will give a presentation in their area of specialization.
  3. Following the campus interviews, the ad hoc search committee will review faculty and student responses about the candidates, consult faculty in the language area concerned, and then prepare a written report and recommendation to be presented at a meeting of the tenured and tenure-track faculty. The candidate’s dossier and the ad hoc committee’s report will be available to the appropriate group of faculty members, preferably at least one week before the meeting. The Department Chair will conduct this faculty meeting and will call for a vote by written ballot by rank on the ad hoc committee’s recommendation. Because discussion usefully informs such votes, faculty members must be present in order to vote. After the meeting, the Department Chair will inform the faculty of the results of the vote (not by rank, in order to protect confidentiality). The Chair will report the vote of each rank of faculty as well as the total vote in any recommendation made to the Dean. Meetings having to do with personnel decisions are confidential, and protecting the confidentiality of the discussion is a professional responsibility of each person in attendance.
  4. Prior to recommending a joint appointment for any faculty member, the Department Chair will seek the advice of the tenured and tenure-track faculty and a vote by written ballot. The Chair will report the vote of each rank of faculty as well as the total vote in any recommendation made to the Dean.

back to top

II. Procedures for Reappointment, Tenure, or Promotion of Tenure-Track Faculty

  1. Late in the fall semester, the Department Chair will review personnel files to determine who among the tenure-track faculty are required by University regulations to be reviewed during the next academic year. By January 15 the Chair will notify in writing each tenure-track faculty member to be reviewed for possible reappointment, tenure, or promotion. The letter will indicate what material the candidate is required to submit and what options are open to the faculty when it acts on the review. Candidates will be given at least ninety days to prepare their dossiers, which should include a teaching statement, a research statement, sufficient copies of all relevant publications, and a current curriculum vitae (see Appendix A). Candidates may submit additional materials at their discretion, and they are responsible for providing, at their own expense, sufficient copies of each document. The dossier should contain a checklist of materials that the candidate is submitting for evaluation.
  2. The Tenure-Track Faculty Review Committee provides the Department Chair with the names of individuals qualified to serve on ad hoc review committees, which assess the work of tenure-track faculty eligible for reappointment, tenure, promotion, or post-tenure review. The Tenure-Track Faculty Review Committee consists of three full professors and three tenured associate professors who are elected by the tenure-track faculty and who serve two-year staggered terms. Ordinarily, three members are added and three leave each year. No later than the closing month of the spring semester, the Secretary of the Departmental Faculty, assisted by the Department’s Administrative Manager, will conduct an election open to all tenure-track faculty to select members of the Tenure-Track Faculty Review Committee. The ballot will contain the names of all full and tenured associate professors, arranged by language area, but will exclude the Department Chair, faculty members who will be on leave during the following academic year, and those who have served on the committee during the previous two years. The election will be by plurality vote. In the event of a tie, the election will be determined by a lottery among the tied candidates, to be carried out by the departmental manager together with the secretary of the faculty. If the election results in a committee lacking representation from a language area corresponding to that of a faculty member scheduled for review, the Department Chair will appoint a representative from that language area to the committee as a voting member. Committee members serve a two-year term, beginning on the date on which election results are announced to the faculty. A committee member who is unable to serve for any portion of his or her term will be replaced for that portion of the term by the candidate receiving the next highest vote in the original balloting. Committee members who advance in rank during their tenure on the committee will continue to serve their full term, and any imbalance in the rank distribution of the committee will be addressed in the next annual election. Committee members scheduled for review will recuse themselves from any deliberations pertaining to their own review.
  3. The Department Chair will hold a preliminary meeting with the Tenure-Track Faculty Review Committee in the closing month of the spring semester to inform members about which persons are to be reviewed, the options open to the Department, deadlines for the committee’s reports, and the evaluation procedures required by these guidelines. During this preliminary meeting, committee members also will elect a chair.
  4. At the request of the Department Chair and generally in the closing month of the spring semester, the Tenure-Track Faculty Review Committee, acting as a whole, will submit the names of seven persons whom it considers qualified to judge the work of a colleague scheduled for review for reappointment, tenure, or promotion. The persons nominated must be senior in rank to the candidate whose case is under consideration. Note that if the candidate is being considered for tenure, the ad hoc committee must have at least three members at the rank of professor, and if the candidate is being considered for reappointment, the ad hoc committee must have at least two members at the rank of professor. The list of nominees is advisory to the Department Chair, who will appoint five persons to an ad hoc committee and will inform them in writing (with a copy to the chair of the Tenure-Track Faculty Review Committee) of their charge and the deadline for their report. Ordinarily, persons of the same rank and in the same language section will be reviewed by the same ad hoc committee.
  5. The Department Chair will meet with each ad hoc review committee no later than the first month of the fall semester to inform members of the procedures required by these guidelines. In the case of reviews that involve the solicitation of external letters, the Department Chair will meet with the ad hoc committees at the end of the semester before the review is to be conducted. During this meeting, ad hoc review committee members also will elect a committee chair. Before beginning their deliberations, committee members are advised to review all the documents relative to faculty personnel policies and actions listed in the “Introduction” (p. 1), including both university-wide and departmental documents. The primary responsibility of each ad hoc review committee is to conduct a fair, comprehensive evaluation of each faculty member to be reviewed and to prepare a written report and recommendation to the faculty. The committee may work together as one or divide into subcommittees. All information needed by the committee should be requested only through the Department Chair; committee members should not communicate with persons being reviewed about matters concerning the review. All material handled by the committee is confidential, and all hard copies of materials should be returned to the Department Chair upon completion of the review.
  6. The ad hoc review committee will meet as often as necessary to complete its work and draft a report describing each candidate’s performance in the areas of teaching, research, and service. The committee must make a recommendation either for or against reappointment, tenure, and/or promotion, as appropriate. This recommendation must be based on the candidate’s dossier, evaluations of his or her teaching, possible assessments of the scholarship provided by external reviewers, and the committee’s own review of the candidate’s achievements. A majority of committee members must approve and sign the report. Any member of the committee may express disagreement with a separate signed statement that will be attached to the report. The chair of the ad hoc review committee will deliver a copy of the report to the Department Chair at least one week in advance of a meeting called to act on the committee’s recommendation.
  7. When the ad hoc committee completes its review, the Department Chair will schedule a meeting or devote a portion of a meeting of the Department’s tenure-track faculty members senior in rank to the candidate. The candidate’s dossier and the ad hoc committee’s report will be available to the appropriate group of faculty members at least one week before the meeting. The Department Chair will conduct the meeting, but the chair of the ad hoc review committee has the responsibility of reading the report or a summary of the report aloud to the assembled faculty and of leading the discussion on the review. Meetings having to do with personnel decisions are confidential, and protecting the confidentiality of the discussion is a professional responsibility of each person in attendance.
  8. The Department Chair will seek the advice of the assembled faculty through discussion and written ballot. Because discussion usefully informs such votes, faculty members must be present in order to vote. After the meeting, the Department Chair will inform the appropriate faculty of the vote. The Department Chair will report the vote by faculty rank as well as the total vote in any recommendation made to the Dean of the College of Arts and Sciences.
  9. Consistent with the Faculty Code, Section 6-4, “voting privileges with respect to matters affecting faculty appointments, reappointments, and promotions shall be limited to members holding tenured or probationary-term [tenure-track] appointments.” Thus, only tenured and tenure-track faculty members may vote on personnel matters involving tenure-track faculty.
  10. University regulations delegate the authority for recommending personnel actions to the Department Chair “after consultation with the assembled full professors of that Department” (Trustee Policies, Section 2-c-(1)). Although the vote of the assembled faculty is advisory to the Department Chair, the Chair normally follows it and always forwards the vote with the Chair’s recommendation to the Dean of the College of Arts and Sciences. The Chair also must forward the candidate’s complete dossier, the ad hoc review committee’s report and recommendation, and, if appropriate, all letters from outside evaluators. Unsolicited letters are disallowed. The Chair will inform the candidate of the nature of his or her recommendation prior to informing the voting faculty.
  11. The final task of the Tenure-Track Faculty Review Committee each year is to review these policies and procedures and to advise the Department Chair of any needed changes. The Department Chair will present recommended revisions of this document to the tenure-track faculty for approval.

 

 

back to top

 

 

III. Uniformity of Procedures in the Review of Tenure-Track Faculty

In soliciting and reporting data and opinions concerning a candidate’s teaching, research, and service, ad hoc review committees will employ uniform procedures for each individual under consideration. The committee’s report should outline the procedures used, either within the body of the report or as an appendix to it. Every effort should be made to secure objective sources of evidence on which to base an appraisal of the candidate’s work. The following outline shall serve as a guide for the types of information to be sought under each heading and the procedure to be employed.

back to top

Teaching

In documenting effective teaching, ad hoc review committees shall consider the following types of evidence:

  1. Student evaluations of all courses taught since the last personnel action or within the previous five years, whichever period is most recent.
  2. For tenure and promotion reviews, letters from at least three students whose research the candidate has guided as director of an honors project, MA thesis, and/or Ph.D. dissertation. The candidate will furnish the names of up to six such students, to whom the Department Chair will write, requesting a letter commenting on the candidate’s effectiveness as a director of the student’s work.
  3. Documents such as course syllabi, bibliographies, web pages, etc. that reflect the candidate’s development of new courses, instructional techniques, and teaching materials. The candidate may furnish such documents as part of the dossier.
  4. The candidate’s written statement of teaching philosophy and goals.
  5. Teaching awards and other distinctions listed in the candidate’s curriculum vitae.
  6. Reports based on classroom visits and prepared by two faculty members senior in rank to the candidate, who will each visit one of the classes taught by the candidate. It is recommended that the visits be to different courses. The Department Chair appoints these two evaluators, one of whom may be chosen in writing by the candidate. At least one of the evaluators should represent the major language area, period, or area of concentration of the candidate. Ordinarily, classroom visits will be conducted in the semester in which the candidate undergoes review. If the candidate will be away from campus that semester, the visits will take place during the semester preceding the review. Evaluators will come at a time agreeable to the candidate, will give the candidate at least ten days’ notice of the impending visit, and will be present for the entire class period. If either the candidate or the evaluator requests a second visit, it will be arranged on a date that is mutually agreeable to both parties. Evaluators will write independent reports of their visits, discussing both the substantive material covered and the candidate’s teaching style. The evaluators will submit their reports to the Department Chair, who will forward them to the ad hoc review committee.

back to top

Research and Other Scholarly Work

The Department Chair invites candidates to submit an accurate, current curriculum vitae in the form recommended by the Provost (Appendix A), a research statement, and copies of all available publications, manuscripts, and other materials to be evaluated. They should feel free to comment in the research statement on their scholarly goals and accomplishments and indicate those items that they consider to be of greatest significance. Under this essential aspect of the candidate’s achievements are included the following evidence:

  1. All scholarly publications, regardless of medium, as well as scholarly material accepted for publication or submitted for publication. In instances involving promotion to full professor, ad hoc committees will evaluate work only if it has been completed and formally accepted for publication.
  2. Papers read at professional meetings.
  3. The editing of scholarly journals or series.
  4. Textbooks and other contributions to professional literature, such as published book reviews, bibliographies, and electronic resources for teaching and research.
  5. Printed judgments of the candidates’ scholarship, as indicated by book reviews, critical discussions, and citations.
  6. For promotion and tenure reviews, a minimum of four (4) letters of evaluation are required; all from outside UNC-Chapel Hill and preferably from research universities with high research activity (see Section IV). The candidate will be asked to submit the names of at least four extramural evaluators (precluding the dissertation director, former students, or co-authors).

The Department Chair will select three names from this list, and three more from a list of at least four names submitted by the ad hoc review committee. The Department Chair is responsible for soliciting these extramural evaluations, which become part of the candidate’s dossier once they are received. No candidate may veto the selection of an outside evaluator after the evaluator has been contacted officially by the Chair, nor is the Department free to delete any evaluation once received. However, a candidate who has a substantive objection to potential extramural evaluators should present said objection(s) to the Chair before outside evaluators are contacted formally. The Chair will respect such reservations expressed by the candidate to ensure an independent and unbiased assessment of the individual. Regardless of how many reviews are solicited, the dossier submitted to the College must contain no fewer than four evaluations, including at least two from individuals nominated by the ad hoc committee. Current state law allows the candidate access to such evaluations, and all extramural evaluations will be open to the appropriate group of faculty voting on a candidate’s tenure or promotion. Extramural evaluations are not necessary in cases of reappointment and post-tenure review.

back to top

Service

In documenting service, the ad hoc committee shall consider the following types of evidence: administrative work; activities in faculty governance; service on departmental, College, and University committees; service as a departmental or College adviser; offices held and services rendered to professional organizations; contributing to the work of editorial boards; and service of a scholarly nature to the community, state, or nation.

back to top

IV. Procedures for Post-Tenure Reviews

This portion of the PPP is superseded by the Post-Tenure Review Policies and Procedures, approved by the Department in April 2015, by the Dean’s Office in June 2015, and amended by the Dean’s Office in November 2016.  To view the text in the PPP approved February 2014, you can expand it by clicking the gray bar below.

  1. The purpose of a post-tenure review is to recognize the accomplishments of faculty members, evaluate their progress toward major professional goals, and provide constructive suggestions toward possible promotion (in the case of associate professors) or toward continued effectiveness as contributing members of the faculty. The goals are “to promote faculty development, ensure faculty productivity and provide accountability” (“Post-Tenure Review,” p. 1). Tenured faculty members shall undergo a post-tenure review no less often than every five years; however, comprehensive evaluations conducted for other purposes, such as a review for promotion, can be substituted for post-tenure review. Faculty members with joint appointments are subject to the procedures of their home department. When the Department Chair is being reviewed, the Dean will assume the function of the Department Chair in the review process. Faculty members who indicate to the Department Chair that they are contemplating retirement within a year following a scheduled post-tenure review are not required to undergo post-tenure review; if their plans change and the retirement is postponed, a review must be scheduled as soon as possible.
  2. The Department Chair will notify a faculty member undergoing post-tenure review in writing at least six months in advance and will inform him or her of the composition of the ad hoc post-tenure review committee once it is formed. Faculty members undergoing post-tenure review must submit a current curriculum vitae (see Appendix A), copies of publications and manuscripts accepted for publication since the last comprehensive review, and a self-appraisal summarizing their accomplishments and describing future plans. The self-appraisal offers the faculty member the opportunity to reflect on his or her career and to highlight the past, present, and future professional goals and achievements in relation to the mission of the Department, College, and institution. Student evaluations for all courses taught since the faculty member’s last review will be made available by the Department Manager. Faculty members may include other supporting material, and the ad hoc post-tenure review committee, at its discretion, may request additional written information or material from the colleague under review from the Department Chair.
  3. One ad hoc committee will conduct all post-tenure reviews scheduled during a single academic year. The size of the ad hoc committee will vary in relation to the number of reviews it must conduct. In the closing month of the spring semester preceding a scheduled post-tenure review, the Tenure-Track Faculty Review Committee, acting as a whole, will submit to the Department Chair the names of five to seven full professors whom it considers qualified to judge the work of those colleagues scheduled for post-tenure review. Among these names must be at least one full professor representing each candidate’s language area. The list of nominees is advisory to the Department Chair, who will appoint at least three and no more than five persons to an ad hoc post-tenure review committee and will inform its members in writing (with a copy to the chair of the Faculty Review Committee) of their charge and the deadline for their report(s). When a full professor undergoing post-tenure review is the only full professor in a language area, the Department Chair will request that he or she nominates one full professor from inside or outside the Department to serve on the ad hoc post-tenure review committee as an additional voting member.
  4. The Department Chair will meet with the ad hoc post-tenure review committee no later than the first month of the fall semester to inform members of the procedures required by these guidelines. During this meeting, ad hoc post-tenure review committee members also will elect a committee chair. Before beginning their deliberations, committee members are advised to review this document as well as the Office of the Provost’s “Post-Tenure Review” guidelines. The committee may work as a committee of the whole or as one or more subcommittees of no fewer than two members each. All information needed by the committee should be requested only through the Department Chair. Material handled by the committee is confidential, and all hard copies of materials should be returned to the Department Chair upon completion of the review.
  5. The ad hoc post-tenure review committee will evaluate each faculty member’s scholarship, teaching, and service and will prepare an individual written assessment of his or her overall performance. A peer teaching report will be prepared by a faculty member (associate or full professor in the review of an associate professor, or a full professor for the review of a full professor) appointed by the Department Chair. The report will be based on the visit to one class. Additional class observations will be conducted if the candidate requests them, if other aspects of a colleague’s professional record indicate a need for them, if student course evaluations reveal a pattern of possible problems, or if other information makes closer examination advisable. Such visits shall be at the discretion of the candidate or a majority of the members of the ad hoc post-tenure review committee.  The committee’s report should recognize outstanding performance and acknowledge changing expectations at different stages of a faculty member’s career. When warranted, the report should candidly identify areas for improvement and recommend specific plans for change.
  6. The chair of the ad hoc post-tenure review committee will deliver each faculty member’s report to the Department Chair, who will provide a copy to the faculty member. The faculty member being reviewed shall have an opportunity to respond in writing to the report, and the Department Chair shall maintain a record of the committee’s report and any response to it as part of the faculty member’s confidential personnel file.
  7. If the post-tenure review committee or the Department Chair notes substantial deficiencies in a faculty member’s overall performance, a more comprehensive plan for improvement—a development plan—will be prepared by the Department Chair and the faculty member. This plan will elaborate on the recommendations of the ad hoc post-tenure review committee and should take into account the faculty member’s intellectual interests, abilities, and career stage, as well as the needs of the Department and institution. The development plan should establish clear goals, specify steps to achieve those goals, define indicators that reveal when goals have been attained, stipulate a clear and reasonable time frame for completing the goals, identify any resources available for implementing the plan and state the consequences of failure to attain the goals. A copy of the development plan will be forwarded to the Dean of the College of Arts and Sciences. The faculty member’s annual report should be used to assess progress toward goals specified in the plan, and the Department Chair should acknowledge in writing a faculty member’s progress, improvement, and successful completion of a development plan. Improvement must be shown within a three-year period.
  8. A faculty member whose overall performance has been found to show substantial deficiencies and for whom a development plan has been recommended will have the right to appeal the findings of the ad hoc post-tenure review committee and the recommendation for a development plan to the Dean, whose decision shall be final.
  9. In the case of a faculty member who fails to complete a development plan successfully and whose performance continues to be deficient, the Department Chair should notify the Dean, who will consider whether grounds for dismissal or other disciplinary action exist under the Trustee Policies and Regulations Governing Academic Tenure. Dismissal or severe sanction may be imposed only in accordance with and on the grounds stated in the Trustee Policies and Regulations Governing Academic Tenure

back to top


Post Tenure Review Policies & Procedures

I. Introduction

Post-tenure review (PTR) is a systematic, comprehensive evaluation of the academic performance of tenured faculty members. The goals of post-tenure review are to: 1) Promote faculty development; 2) Ensure continued professional productivity; and 3) Provide accountability. The PTR process respects the basic principles of academic freedom and should be flexible enough to acknowledge different expectations in different disciplines and changing expectations at different stages of faculty careers. These policies and procedures conform to the basic principles and guidelines for post-tenure review as defined by the Office of the Provost, the UNC-Chapel Hill Board of Trustees, and the UNC Board of Governors.

back to top

II. Review Cycle and Notification

Each faculty member is subject to post-tenure review no less frequently than every five years following the conferral of permanent tenure. The Department Chair will notify a faculty member in writing at least six months prior to the start of the scheduled post-tenure review. A comprehensive review for promotion during the same time period may be substituted for post-tenure review. Department chairs are subject to post-tenure review through a process similar to that for regular faculty members and the appropriate timing for their review is determined by the appropriate Senior Associate Dean.

back to top

III. Post-Tenure Review Committee

The post-tenure review process must involve faculty peers and is conducted by a PostTenure Review Committee appointed by the Chair with a minimum of three tenured faculty members at or above the rank of the faculty member being reviewed. The faculty member being reviewed may not participate in the selection of PTRC members. All post-tenure review evaluators, including members of the peer review committee and the Chair, shall receive post-tenure review training as prescribed by UNC General Administration and UNC-Chapel Hill prior to participating in a post-tenure review process. The Department will follow prescribed procedures to verify that such training has occurred. 2 In the case of tenured joint appointments, the home/primary department and secondary department(s) will each conduct their own review. If each department agrees, the review may be carried out with one single joint post tenure review committee that includes eligible faculty members from all appointing departments. An ad hoc committee will conduct all post-tenure reviews scheduled during a single academic year. The size of the ad hoc committee will vary in relation to the number of reviews it must conduct. In the closing month of the spring semester preceding a scheduled post-tenure review, the Tenure-Track Faculty Review Committee, acting as a whole, will submit to the Department Chair the names of five to seven full professors whom it considers qualified to judge the work of those colleagues scheduled for post-tenure review. Among these names must be at least one full professor representing each candidate’s language area. The list of nominees is provided as advisory to the Department Chair, who will appoint at least three and no more than five persons (whether on this list or not) to an ad hoc post-tenure review committee and will inform its members in writing (with a copy to the chair of the Faculty Review Committee) of their charge and the deadline for their report(s). When a full professor undergoing post-tenure review is the only full professor in a language area, the Department Chair may consult with the faculty member regarding an appropriate full professor from inside or outside the Department to serve on the ad hoc post-tenure review committee as an additional voting member; this full professor would serve only for this review. The Department Chair will meet with the ad hoc post-tenure review committee no later than the first month of the fall semester to inform members of the procedures required by these guidelines. During this meeting, ad hoc post-tenure review committee members also will elect a committee chair. The committee may work as a committee of the whole or as one or more subcommittees of no fewer than two members each. All information needed by the committee should be requested only through the Department Chair. Material handled by the committee is confidential, and all hard copies of materials should be returned to the Department Chair upon completion of the review.

back to top

IV. Performance Standards

While there are different performance expectations at different stages of a faculty member’s career, the general standards that govern post-tenure review for all tenured faculty are: • A demonstrated commitment to, and continuing achievement of, research excellence; • A demonstrated commitment to, and continuing achievement of, teaching excellence; and • Continuing service to the Department, University, community, state, nation and world, and to one’s academic profession.

back to top

V. Review Documentation

The faculty member is responsible for providing the following documentation to the PTRC according to the Department’s stated timeline: • Concise self-assessment statements summarizing the faculty member’s research, teaching, service and engagement accomplishments over the past five years and his/her goals for the next five years. Such goals may be modified annually by the faculty member, in consultation with the Chair. • Access to the faculty member’s annual reports for the previous five years • Current, updated curriculum vitae, prepared according to University guidelines • Peer faculty teaching observation reports o One peer faculty member of the same or higher rank must observe at least one complete class session for the faculty member being evaluated for post-tenure review during the year prior to or the year in which the post-tenure review is conducted. o Each peer faculty member observing a class is required to complete a Faculty Peer Teaching Observation Report for each class session observed, employing the College template and this report must be included in the PTRC’s report. • Summaries of student teaching evaluations with quantitative data for the past five years • Copies of publications and manuscripts accepted for publication since the last comprehensive review

back to top

VI. Procedures

The PTRC will carefully review and consider the documentation provided by the faculty member under review, examining the qualitative and quantitative evidence of all relevant aspects of a faculty member’s professional performance over the previous five years in relation to the mission of the Department, College and University. The PTRC will prepare a written summary report of its conclusions and recommendations. In so doing, the PTRC recommends an assessment using a three-point rating scale – meets expectations, exceeds expectations, does not meet expectations/is deficient – regarding the faculty member’s overall performance for the review period. The overall rating must be explicitly stated in the report and will serve as the basis for the Chair’s rating determination. The PTRC should identify and recognize outstanding performance, which should be considered by the Department in the determination of annual salary increases, nomination for awards and other recognitions. The PTRC should also identify any specific areas in which the faculty member can improve with specific recommendations for improvement. If the faculty member’s overall performance does not meet expectations/is deficient, the PTRC report will include a statement of the faculty 4 member’s primary responsibilities, specific shortcomings as they relate to the faculty member’s assigned duties and directional goals established. The PTRC will provide its written report to the Chair. In turn, the Chair will provide the report to the faculty member. The faculty member being reviewed may, but is not required, to provide a written response to the report of the PTRC to the Chair, who may share it with the PTRC. The Chair will review the PTRC report and (if provided) the faculty member’s written response, and then meet with the faculty member to discuss all aspects of his/her overall performance. This meeting will be documented in a brief letter to the faculty member which also provides the Chair’s summary assessment of the faculty member’s PTR using the three-point rating scale – meets expectations, exceeds expectations, does not meet expectations/is deficient. The Chair will maintain, as a part of the faculty member’s confidential personnel file within the department, a record of the PTRC’s report, any response to it, and a copy of the Chair’s letter summarizing the PTR meeting.

back to top

VII. Development Plan

For a faculty member whose overall performance does not meet expectations/is deficient, a more comprehensive written plan for improvement (a Development Plan) will be prepared by the Chair in consultation with the faculty member. The Development Plan will be individual to the faculty member and flexible, taking into consideration the faculty member’s intellectual interests, abilities and career stage, as well as the needs of the Department, College and University. The Development Plan should describe changes, if any, to be made in the faculty member’s teaching, research and/or service responsibilities, establish clear goals, specify steps designed to achieve those goals, and define indicators of goal attainment. If appropriate, it should identify any resources available for implementation of the plan. The Development Plan also should establish a clear and reasonable time frame (1-3 years) for completion of goals and state the consequences of failure to attain the goals. The use of mentoring peers is encouraged. The Development Plan will serve as the basis for subsequent review, which must be carried out by the Chair with the faculty member at least twice annually to assess progress toward meeting the expectations of the Development Plan. The Chair will provide the faculty member with a written summary of these meetings and file them in the faculty member’s confidential personnel file in the Department. When a faculty member has made clear improvement and successfully completed a Development Plan, the Chair should document this outcome in writing to the faculty member.

back to top

VIII. Right of Appeal

A faculty member whose overall performance does not meet expectations/is deficient has the right to appeal the findings of the PTRC, the Chair’s evaluation and the recommendation for a Development Plan to the Dean. 5 Faculty members may grieve matters related to post-tenure review to the Faculty Grievance Committee under Section 607 of the Code of the University of North Carolina during their term of employment.

back to top

IX. Reporting and Records

Using the appropriate electronic reporting system, the Chair will provide to the Senior Associate Dean: • The faculty member’s self-assessment statements, c.v., peer teaching evaluations, and summaries of teaching evaluations; • A copy of the PTRC report, the faculty member’s response if applicable, and a copy of the Chair’s letter summarizing the PTR meeting with the faculty member; • Additional material as deemed appropriate, (e.g., a Development Plan), or as requested by the Senior Associate Dean. The Senior Associate Dean will conduct an evaluative review of the post-tenure review report and associated information and will document his/her approval by signature through the appropriate electronic reporting system. In the case of a faculty member who fails to complete a Development Plan successfully and whose performance continues to be deficient, the Chair should notify the Dean, who will consider whether grounds for dismissal or other disciplinary action exists under The Trustee Policies and Regulations Governing Academic Tenure. Copies of each unit’s post-tenure review procedures, as revised from time to time, will be filed with the Dean’s Office. Chairs will maintain a list of the faculty members reviewed each year, a record of completed reviews and faculty responses to the reviews, the names of all faculty members for whom a Development Plan was recommended and established, and a copy of new Development Plans. The Dean of the College will submit an annual report summarizing this information to the Office of the Provost. The PTRC report, the faculty member’s response (if applicable), the Chair’s written conclusion and the Senior Associate Dean’s approval documentation will be maintained as part of the faculty member’s confidential personnel file within the department and in the Dean’s Office. The Dean’s Office will provide instructions to Chairs for submittal of post-tenure review documentation in the spring semester.

back to top

X. Requesting a Post-Tenure Review Delay or Exemption

A request for delay of post-tenure review may be made for compelling reasons. A faculty member who plans to retire, resign or apply for the Phased Retirement Program within the academic year the post-tenure review is scheduled to take place may request 6 to forego the review. However, should the faculty member’s plans change in this regard, the post-tenure review must take place during the following academic year. To request to forego or to delay post-tenure review, the faculty member should specify the compelling reasons in a written request to the Chair. The Chair must add his/her written justification and signature, and submit it to the Senior Associate Dean for approval. Dean-approved requests are submitted to the Provost for review, after which a written communication from the Provost will be sent to the faculty member, the Chair and the Senior Associate Dean indicating either approval or denial of the request to forego or delay post-tenure review.

back to top


Specific Procedures for Fixed Term Faculty

  1. Late in the fall semester the Department Chair will review personnel files to determine who among the fixed-term faculty are required by University regulations to be reviewed during the next academic year. By January 15 the Chair will notify in writing each faculty member to be reviewed for possible reappointment. The letter will indicate what material the candidate is required to submit and what options are open to the faculty when it acts on the review. Candidates will be given at least ninety days to prepare their dossiers, which should include a teaching statement, a statement concerning service and professional activities, copies of relevant publications, and a current curriculum vitae. Candidates may submit additional materials at their discretion. The dossier should contain a checklist of materials that the candidate is submitting for evaluation.
  2. No later than the closing month of the spring semester, the Secretary of the Departmental Faculty, assisted by the Department’s Business Officer, will conduct an election open to all tenured and tenure-track faculty and teaching associate professors to select a six-member Personnel Committee for the purpose of reviewing fixed-term faculty. The Committee will be composed of three tenured faculty members, two untenured tenure-track faculty members, and one Teaching Associate Professor.  The ballot will contain the names of all tenured faculty, untenured tenure-track faculty who have completed at least three years of their initial contracts, and Teaching Associate Professors, arranged by the three categories for the composition of the Committee. Voting faculty will vote for the appropriate number of names from each of the three categories. The ballot will exclude the Department Chair, professors who will be on leave during the following fall semester, and those who have served on the committee during the previous year. An election will be by plurality vote. In the event of a tie, the election will be determined by a lottery among the tied candidates. If the election results in a committee lacking representation from a language area corresponding to that of a fixed-term faculty member scheduled for review, the Department Chair will appoint a representative from that language area to the  Personnel  Committee as an additional voting member. Committee members serve a one-year term, beginning on the date on which election results are announced to the faculty. A committee member who is unable to serve for any portion of his or her term will be replaced for that portion of the term by the candidate receiving the next highest vote in the original balloting.
  3. The Department Chair will hold a preliminary meeting with the Personnel Committee in the closing month of the spring semester to inform members of the persons to be reviewed, the options open to the Department for renewing or terminating the contract, deadlines for the committee’s reports, and the evaluation procedures required by these guidelines. Committee members should be advised to review all the documents relative to faculty personnel policies and actions listed in the “Introduction” (p. 1 above), including both university-wide and departmental documents, before beginning their deliberations and in making their recommendation. During this preliminary meeting, committee members also will elect a committee chair. The primary responsibility of the Personnel Committee is to conduct a fair, comprehensive evaluation of each faculty member to be reviewed and to prepare a written report and recommendation to the faculty. The committee may work as a committee of the whole or as subcommittees of no fewer than three members each. All information needed by the committee should be requested only through the Department Chair; committee members should not communicate with persons being reviewed about matters concerning the review. All material handled by the committee will be kept in a secure location. Material circulated among members of the committee will be placed in sealed envelopes marked “Confidential.” All material will be returned to the Department Chair after the assembled faculty has acted on the committee’s reports.
  4. The Personnel Committee will meet as often as necessary to complete its work and draft its reports describing each candidate’s performance in the areas of teaching, research, and service. The committee must make a recommendation either for or against reappointment. This recommendation must be based on the candidate’s dossier, evaluations of his or her teaching, and the committee’s own review of the candidate’s achievements. A majority of committee members must approve and sign each report; members who disagree with the report may communicate their reasons in the body of the report or in a separate statement. The chair of the Personnel Committee will deliver two copies of each report to the Department Chair at least one week in advance of the meeting called to act on the committee’s recommendation.
  5. When the committee completes its review, the Department Chair will schedule a meeting of the tenured and tenure-track faculty members. The candidate’s dossier and the Personnel Committee’s report will be available to these faculty members at least a week before the meeting. At meetings called to hear reports of the Personnel Committee, the chair of the Personnel Committee has the responsibility of reading the report aloud to the assembled faculty and of leading the discussion. Meetings having to do with personnel decisions are confidential, and protecting the confidentiality of the discussion is a professional responsibility of each person in attendance.
  6. The Department Chair will seek the advice of the assembled faculty (tenured, tenure-track, and Teaching Associate Professors for the renewal of a Teaching Assistant Professor and tenured and tenure-track faculty for the renewal of a Teaching Associate Professor) through discussion and written ballot.  Because discussion usefully informs such votes, faculty members must be present in order to vote.   After the meeting, the Department Chair will inform the appropriate faculty of the vote. The Department Chair will report the vote by faculty rank as well as the total vote in any recommendation made to the Dean of the College of Arts and Sciences.
  7. University regulations delegate the authority for recommending personnel actions to the Department Chair “after consultation with the assembled full professors of that Department” (Trustee Policies, Section 2-c-(1)). Although the vote of the assembled faculty is advisory to the Chair, the Chair normally follows it and always forwards it with the Chair’s recommendation to the Dean of the College of Arts and Sciences. The Chair also must forward the candidate’s complete dossier, the Personnel Committee’s report, and recommendation, and if appropriate, letters from outside evaluators. The Chair will inform the candidate of the nature of his or her recommendation.
  8. The final task of the Personnel Committee each year is to review Section V  [NOTE – it is unclear what Section V refers to in the original document] of these policies and procedures and to advise the Department Chair of any needed changes. The Department Chair will present recommended revisions of this document to the tenure-track faculty for approval.
  9. Point 9 seems to just summarize points 1-8.  To read this point, you can expand it by clicking the gray bar below.
    Fixed-term faculty are appointed for an initial period of three years. In January of the penultimate year of a fixed-term contract, the Department Chair will notify the candidate in writing of the need to be reviewed, will indicate what materials the candidate is required to submit, and will inform him or her of the options open to the faculty when it acts on the review. Candidates will be given at least 90 days to prepare their materials, including a teaching and service statement,  copies of all relevant publications,  and a current curriculum vitae. The Personnel Committee will conduct the review and will prepare a written report and recommendation either to renew the fixed-term appointment for a maximum of three years (five years in the case of Teaching Associate Professors and master Teaching Assistant Professors) or to terminate the candidate’s contract. The candidate’s dossier will be available to the tenured/tenure-track faculty and Teaching Associate Professors for their review at least one week prior to a meeting at which the Committee’s recommendation will be read aloud, discussed, and voted on by secret ballot. The vote of the faculty is advisory to the Department Chair, but the Chair usually follows it and always forwards the vote together with the candidate’s dossier and the Personnel Committee’s report, to the Dean.If a candidate requests to be considered for promotion to Teaching Associate Professor prior to a scheduled review, the review for Teaching Associate Professor shall constitute the review for the next renewal as well. If the ad-hoc committee recommends promotion, it will be effective at the earliest opportunity (July 1 or January 1).
  10. Unlike the review of tenure-track faculty, the evaluation of fixed-term faculty has a different emphasis. The Department assigns greater weight to the candidate’s teaching, work with undergraduate students, and service than to scholarship and support of graduate students (except in their role as teachers). Consequently, the following activities are regarded most relevant:
    • Teaching, as judged by student evaluations and class observations;
    • Coordination of courses, as judged by annual evaluations from those who have taught the courses and by reports from language program directors;
    • Supervision and training of teaching fellows, as judged by annual evaluations from graduate teaching fellows and other fixed-term faculty;
    • Service on committees and  administrative  work  within  the  Department  and University;
    • Other professional activity such as advising, conference presentations, preparation of instructional materials, creation of Web sites, and publications.
  11. All fixed-term faculty must meet the same requirements expected of tenure-track faculty to solicit student evaluations for every class taught. Late in each fall semester, fixed-term faculty who coordinate courses also shall submit to the Department Chair a list of all graduate teaching fellows and Teaching Assistant Professors whose work they have directly supervised during the previous academic year. The Department Chair shall solicit from these instructors evaluations of the coordinator’s performance as a supervisor and mentor. Language program directors also shall be evaluated annually, late in the spring semester, by those graduate teaching fellows and Teaching Assistant Professors whose work they have supervised during the previous academic year. These evaluations—from students as well as from graduate teaching fellows and other instructors—will be consulted by the Personnel Committee in its review of the candidate.
  12. In the academic year in which the candidate is to be reviewed, but no sooner than the third week of classes and no later than the last full week of classes, two faculty members will visit at least one class taught by the candidate. The candidate or the committee may request that one or both of the evaluators visit an additional class. This request should be made in writing to the Chair of the Department. One of the observers will be the language program director in French or Spanish, or the undergraduate advisor in Italian or Portuguese, or their designees selected in consultation with the Department Chair.  (When the language director is to be reviewed, the Department Chair will select a faculty member at the rank of assistant professor or above in consultation with the candidate.) The second faculty member will be at the rank of assistant professor or above and selected by the Department Chair from a list of two names provided by the candidate. Each observer will prepare an independent written assessment of the candidate’s teaching, which will be forwarded through the Department Chair to the Personnel Committee.

back to top


I. Promotion of a Teaching Associate Professor to Teaching Professor

Eligibility for Teaching Professor

A Teaching Associate Professor is eligible for recommendation for promotion to teaching professor on the following basis:

  • The candidate must have a minimum of six consecutive years’ full-time (i.e., 1 FTE) service as a Teaching Associate Professor, or, if the candidate is from another institution and identified in a national search, six consecutive years of full-time (1 FTE) service as a Teaching Associate Professor or faculty equivalent. A Teaching Associate Professor may not be appointed to the rank of teaching professor until six consecutive years of 1 FTE service at the rank of Teaching Associate Professor have elapsed. A Teaching Assistant Professor is not eligible for promotion to teaching professor.
  • The candidate must provide demonstrable evidence of distinguished teaching and service to the appointing department, beyond that which is expected of a Teaching Associate Professor, in accordance with standards of distinguished teaching and service defined by the unit in which the candidate is appointed.

In the Department of Romance Studies, evidence of distinguished teaching may include: a university teaching award, consistent teaching evaluations in the top 5-10% of the department, outstanding peer teaching reviews, leadership roles on unit committees concerned with teaching, success in writing and/or administering grants that improve teaching in the unit, administrative oversight and training of teaching assistants and/or other fixed-term faculty in the unit.

In the Department of Romance Studies, evidence of distinguished service may include: a university service award; leadership on committees and task forces at the unit, College, or University levels (such as educational policy, teaching award, staff award, or search committees); service as unit undergraduate advising coordinator or director of a language program or coordinator of a language course; outstanding service on the UNC Faculty Council and/or its subcommittees; leadership in national or regional professional organizations; membership on the advisory board of a professional journal; invitations for speaking engagements at other institutions of higher learning; professional consulting.

back to top

Procedure for review of candidates for Teaching Professor

Only a Teaching Associate Professor who has completed a minimum of six consecutive years of full-time (1 FTE) service in the Department of Romance Studies is eligible to be considered for promotion to teaching professor.

A candidate eligible for promotion to teaching professor in the Department of Romance Studies will be reviewed by a unit committee appointed by the Chair. This review committee will be composed of at least three tenured faculty members and at least one teaching professor, provided one or more teaching professors are part of the departmental faculty. If the departmental faculty contains no teaching professors, a teaching professor from another department may be included on a review committee, with the approval of the Dean’s Office. 2 This committee is responsible for reviewing any eligible candidate’s dossier and submitting a report on each candidate under consideration.

To be reviewed by the department’s review committee, eligible candidates for Teaching Associate Professor must submit a dossier containing the following:

  1. the candidate’s current curriculum vitae;
  2. the candidate’s statement of teaching and service;
  3. documentation of the candidate’s teaching and service activities;
  4. annual summaries of teaching, annual summaries of student evaluations, and periodic peer teaching evaluations. Peer teaching evaluators should be assigned according to individual unit policy.
  5. evidence of extraordinary teaching and service.
  6. the names of two individuals (from UNC or external) who may serve as referees as to the candidate’s qualifications for the rank of Teaching Associate Professor.
  7. additional materials, such as observations of classroom teaching, student recommendations, nominations for teaching awards, grant applications, and other materials relevant to the case, such as publications.

The review committee may ask for additional class observations, which should be conducted according to the procedures established for the review of fixed-term faculty in Section L.

Upon receipt of a complete dossier, the Chair will solicit letters from two referees, one from a list provided by the candidate and one chosen by the Chair, as to the candidate’s qualifications for promotion to the rank of teaching professor. Upon receipt of the two letters, the Chair will include them in the candidate’s dossier.

After reviewing each dossier, the departmental review committee will submit to the Chair a report concerning each candidate for promotion to teaching professor. The Chair will make this report available to the assembled eligible faculty of the department, whom the Chair will consult in a manner analogous to the process whereby the unit Chair consults the unit’s faculty on the promotion of faculty members on the tenure track. This consultation will result in a vote of the eligible faculty of the department, that is, tenured and tenure-track faculty and Teaching Associate Professors, recorded by rank, in each case for promotion to Teaching Associate Professor. To ensure confidentiality, reports of the faculty vote, other than the report submitted to the Dean, will include only the total vote of the eligible faculty.

The Chair of the department may decide to accept or reject the advice given by the eligible faculty. In either case, the candidate’s complete dossier must be forwarded to the Dean with a letter from the Chair either recommending or denying promotion. Besides reporting the vote of the faculty, the Chair’s letter should highlight factors concerning teaching and service that most influenced the recommendation. Regardless of the Chair’s recommendation, the Chair must communicate that decision in writing to the candidate. A Teaching Associate Professor whose case for promotion is denied is eligible for reconsideration three years after the decision against promotion; earlier consideration by the unit requires permission from the Senior Associate Dean.
The dossier for the candidate forwarded to the Dean will contain the following:

  1. the chair’s letter, noting the review committee’s role and vote, and the vote of the eligible faculty, recorded by rank;
  2. the report of the unit review committee on the candidate;
  3. the candidate’s current curriculum vitae;
  4. the candidate’s statement of teaching and service;
  5. documentation of the candidate’s teaching and service activities;
  6. annual teaching summaries and summaries of student evaluations;
  7. a minimum of two letters from referees (UNC or external) that address the candidate’s qualifications for the rank of Teaching Associate Professor.
  8. additional materials, such as publications.

Our voting process for promotion to Teaching Professor will follow the same procedure as our process for voting on tenure appointments.  Only the votes of tenured members of the department will be solicited by the chair and recorded as part of the advisory process.

back to top


II. Promotion of a Teaching Assistant Professor to a Teaching Associate Professor

Eligibility for Teaching Associate Professor

A Teaching Assistant Professor is eligible for recommendation for promotion to Teaching Associate Professor on the following basis:

  • The candidate must have a minimum of six consecutive years’ full-time (i.e., 1 FTE) service as a Teaching Assistant Professor in the same College department, or, if the candidate is from another institution, six consecutive years of full-time (1 FTE) service as a Teaching Assistant Professor or faculty equivalent.
  • The candidate must provide demonstrable evidence of extraordinary teaching and service to the appointing department, beyond that which is expected of a Teaching Assistant Professor, in accordance with standards of extraordinary teaching and service defined by the unit in which the candidate is appointed.

In the Department of Romance Studies, evidence of extraordinary teaching may include: a university teaching award, consistent teaching evaluations in the top 10% of the department, regular service on undergraduate honors theses committees, exceptionally high peer teaching reviews, success in writing and/or administering grants that improve teaching in a unit, administrative oversight and training of teaching assistants and/or other fixed-term faculty in a unit.

In the Department of Romance Studies, evidence of extraordinary service may include: a university service award, service as departmental undergraduate advising coordinator, service on the UNC Faculty Council and/or its subcommittees, service on university committees (such as Teaching Award Committee, Staff Award Committee, university search committees), chairing unit committees or task forces, membership on the advisory board of a professional journal, invitations for speaking engagements at other institutions of higher learning, service through Carolina Speakers Bureau. The candidate, if applicable, may also ask that his or her record of research and publication be considered along with service, especially the publication of textbooks and other pedagogical scholarship.

back to top

Procedure for review of candidates for Teaching Associate Professor

Only a teaching assistant professor who has completed a minimum of six consecutive years of full-time (1 FTE) service in the Department of Romance Studies is eligible to be considered for promotion to teaching associate professor.

A candidate eligible for promotion to teaching associate professor in the Department of Romance Studies will be reviewed by a unit committee appointed by the Chair from a list of seven names provided by the Personnel Committee. This review committee will be composed of at least three tenured faculty members and at least one teaching associate professor, provided one or more teaching associate professors are part of the departmental faculty. This committee is responsible for reviewing any eligible candidate’s dossier and submitting a report on each candidate under consideration.

To be reviewed by the department’s review committee, eligible candidates for teaching associate professor must submit a dossier containing the following:

  1. the candidate’s current curriculum vitae;
  2. the candidate’s statement of teaching and service;
  3. documentation of the candidate’s teaching and service activities;
  4. annual summaries of teaching, annual summaries of student evaluations, and periodic peer teaching evaluations. Peer teaching evaluators should be assigned according to individual unit policy.
  5. evidence of extraordinary teaching and service.
  6. the names of two individuals (from UNC or external) who may serve as referees as to the candidate’s qualifications for the rank of teaching associate professor.
  7. additional materials, such as observations of classroom teaching, student recommendations, nominations for teaching awards, grant applications, and other materials relevant to the case, such as publications.

The review committee may ask for additional class observations, which should be conducted according to the procedures established for the review of fixed-term faculty in Section L.

Upon receipt of a complete dossier, the Chair will solicit letters from two referees, one from a list provided by the candidate and one chosen by the Chair, as to the candidate’s qualifications for promotion to the rank of teaching associate professors. Upon receipt of the two letters, the Chair will include them in the candidate’s dossier.

After reviewing each dossier, the departmental review committee will submit to the Chair a report concerning each candidate for promotion to teaching associate professors. The Chair will make this report available to the assembled eligible faculty of the department, whom the Chair will consult in a manner analogous to the process whereby the unit Chair consults the unit’s faculty on the promotion of faculty members on the tenure track. This consultation will result in a vote of the eligible faculty of the department, that is, tenured and tenure-track faculty and teaching associate professors, recorded by rank, on each case for promotion to Teaching Associate Professor. To ensure confidentiality, reports of the faculty vote, other than the report submitted to the Dean, will include only the total vote of the eligible faculty.

The Chair of the department may decide to accept or reject the advice given by the eligible faculty. In either case, the candidate’s complete dossier must be forwarded to the Dean with a letter from the Chair either recommending or denying promotion. Besides reporting the vote of the faculty, the Chair’s letter should highlight factors concerning teaching and service that most influenced the recommendation. Regardless of the Chair’s recommendation, the Chair must communicate that decision in writing to the candidate. A teaching assistant professor whose case for promotion is denied is eligible for reconsideration three years after the decision against promotion; earlier consideration by the unit requires permission from the Senior Associate Dean.
The dossier for the candidate forwarded to the Dean will contain the following:

  1. the chair’s letter, noting the review committee’s role and vote, and the vote of the eligible faculty, recorded by rank;
  2. the report of the unit review committee on the candidate;
  3. the candidate’s current curriculum vitae;
  4. the candidate’s statement of teaching and service;
  5. documentation of the candidate’s teaching and service activities;
  6. annual teaching summaries and summaries of student evaluations;
  7. a minimum of two letters from referees (UNC or external) that address the candidate’s qualifications for the rank of teaching associate professor.
  8. additional materials, such as publications.

See the University’s Academic Personnel website (Fixed Term Faculty Appt to a Higher Rank) for a checklist of documents required for inclusion in the dossier of a fixed-term faculty member’s application for promotion (appointment to a higher rank).

back to top


Standard Order for CV

The CV is meant to allow all faculty members an opportunity to showcase their teaching, scholarship, service, engagement, creative endeavors, interdisciplinary activities and a wide array of accomplishments including non-traditional products.

The standard order is reverse-chronological (items listed newest to oldest). CV should have pages numbered and include the date of latest revision.

The cv should include the following elements in order, as applicable:

  1. Personal (don’t include home address, phone, SSN, or country of origin)
  2. Education
  3. Professional experience
  4. Honors
  5. Bibliography and products of scholarship (as applicable)
    1. Books & chapters(show author order incl pgs)
    2. Refereed papers/articles (show author order incl pgs)
    3. Refereed other products of scholarship (with electronic links displayed, if relevant)
    4. Products of interdisciplinary scholarship
    5. Products of engaged scholarship
    6. Products of creative activity such as performances and exhibitions
    7. Digital and other novel forms of scholarship (with electronic links displayed, if relevant)
    8. Refereed unpublished oral presentations &/or abstracts
    9. Other, including book reviews and other products of scholarship (with electronic links displayed, if relevant)
  6. Teaching activities: List courses for the past three years, number of students taught by section. Give names of graduate students supervised, thesis titles, and completion dates for degree work since employment at UNC-CH. Undergraduate honors projects should be included as well.
  7. Grants (role, total direct grant amount, % effort, agency, dates, etc.)
  8. Professional service
  9. Research statement (considered part of CV but should be submitted as separate document)
  10. Teaching statement (considered part of CV but should be submitted as separate document)

back to top


Fixed Documents

**Standard Order for CV: clarification here.**