Inclusion, Diversity, Equity, Access, and Sovereignty  

The Information School values diverse voices.  We acknowledge that not everyone on the faculty comes from the same lived experience. We all do not share the same assumptions about generational and systemic constraints and affordances.  When candidates have done work informed by contemporary best practice in building a more diverse and inclusive environment, or where equity and accessibility have been driving forces in scholarship, course design, and in leadership and service it should be described in the narrative.  This allows the reviewers and the faculty above rank to see both intention and actions in the record provided. 

Timing of Promotion

Promotion from assistant teaching professor to associate teaching professor recognizes outstanding quality and performance of teaching over a sustained period of time, generally 6 years. Consideration will be given to accumulated years of teaching for the Information School and previous teaching appointments at other institutions.

Evidence Considered in the Promotion Process 

Evidence Prepared by the Candidate

• A complete and error-free Curriculum Vitae (CV) (See Appendix 1, Section 1)
• Self-assessment (up to 15 pages) discussing teaching, scholarship, service, optionally IDEAS work (See Appendix 1, Section 2)
• A co-authorship document that details the roles in authorship and the relationships between co-authors (optional)
• A reflection on student evaluation of teaching for scores at or below 3.0 and non-scored course evaluations where common themes for areas for improvement are evident
• Holistic teaching rubric (optional)
• Documented evidence of scholarship
• Summer addendum (See Appendix 1, Section 3)

Evidence Prepared by the School on behalf of the Candidate 

• Student evaluations of teaching: Candidates are expected to have course evaluations for all of the courses taught at the UW; 
• Peer evaluations of teaching: The Faculty Code calls for peer review every year for assistant teaching professors, and these reviews are an important part of the candidate's record;
• Syllabi of all courses taught at the University of Washington. 

Evidence Requested by the School

• Three to six non-conflicted “arm’s length”, confidential reviews are required for promotion consideration. When evaluating assistant teaching professors who are candidates for promotion to associate teaching professor, it may be appropriate for the School to solicit letters from experts who are external to the candidate’s academic unit, but who are internal to the UW. All external reviewers should be recognized contributors to their field, as indicated, for example, by tenure and/or an academic rank senior to the candidate at a peer university, frequent citation of their work, or major awards. Members of the professional or governmental community may also serve as appropriate external reviewers. Reviewers should be able to assess scholarly and teaching achievements as well as service contributions. Requests soliciting external reviews should be tailored to the expectations of the professorial teaching track and should include representative materials (e.g., self-assessment, CV, syllabi, student and peer teaching evaluations) to assist reviewers in their evaluation. 
• Reviews of exhibition work or other installations described in the CV and/or the self-assessment (See Appendix 2)

Appendix 1 

In this appendix we outline qualities and characteristics that should be considered when preparing documentation for promotion. 

Section 1: The Curriculum Vitae

University minimum requirements for the CV are:

• Date when CV is prepared 
• Education — including institutions, degrees granted, dates 
• PhD dissertation title and primary PhD advisor, if applicable
• Employment — including institutions (UW, as well as others), appointments, dates 
• UW committees and other duties 
• Research projects, grants, contracts — including funding agencies, dates, amounts of funding, individual’s role (PI, co-PI, other) 
• Bibliography of publications with entries listed in full bibliographic format, including page number range where publication appears, or number of pages of publication 
• Professional offices and awards, with dates 
• Talks, papers, or presentations — including dates, type of presentation (invited, contributed, and/or refereed) 
• Any additional supporting information (e.g., election to office or committee status in national or international scholarly or professional organization; appointment as consultant or editor; invitation to review or evaluate the work of others; selection for grants, fellowships, or awards; achievements of former students; and significant service to the state or nation) 

 [Academic HR. (2022). Part 1: Assembly of the Promotion/Tenure Record]. 

The Information School requirements for the CV, on top of the above, are: 

• Teaching, advising, and mentoring should be listed 
• Service to the school, the university, the profession, and other service should be listed 
• All non-English publications should be translated into English in brackets beneath the original citation.  If a non-English publication is a translation of an English publication, that should be noted. The two should be linked on the CV 
• All theses and dissertations should list title and primary advisor(s), but also what field the work is in 
• Items not published through a peer review process or through a peer reviewed press should be noted as “self-published” or “non-peer reviewed” as appropriate 
• All honors and awards should be linked to the accomplishment.  For example, if a best paper is listed as an award, the award should be clearly linked to the appropriate citation 

Section 2: Self-Assessment (up to 15 pages) - To be used for both internal and external review of the promotion case

As regards the self-assessment, the University says: 

“In addition to the CV, the candidate should prepare a written self-assessment of academic accomplishments as well as future plans and career trajectory. Candidates are referred toFaculty Code Section 24-32 and Executive Order 45, which outline pertinent scholarship and professional qualifications of particular importance at the University of Washington. 

In the self-assessment, the candidate should reflect on the significance, independence, influence, and promise of completed and in-progress scholarship and/or creative work. The focus should be on achievements in rank or title at the University of Washington, but it is important to place those achievements in context with how it fits into a larger body of work or program. Candidates holding ranks or titles with a primary emphasis in research or teaching should particularly reflect upon accomplishments and experiences that are consistent with their rank or title. All candidates should outline contributions to the profession, the University, and public service,” [Academic HR. (2022). Part 1: Assembly of the Promotion/Tenure Record]. 

The self-assessment, while comporting with the University guidelines, must cover scholarship; teaching and mentoring; service, leadership, and professionalism; and where appropriate IDEAS work.   

Teaching

The candidate should demonstrate a sustained record of excellence in teaching, as well as innovation in teaching and learning. This can be presented within the self-assessment through a statement on teaching practice, innovations in teaching, preparation and delivery of curricula, reflection on student and peer evaluation, experiences in advising and mentoring, and the candidate’s future trajectory of teaching practice. 

For courses with student evaluations of teaching at or below a 3.0, we ask faculty to reflect on what reasons might bring about such a score, and what measures the candidate took to improve. If there are non-scored course evaluations reflecting a common theme in areas for improvement, these course evaluations should also be discussed. This is done in a separate document appended to the self-assessment. This is done in a separate document appended to the self-assessment. 

Research and Scholarship

Evidence of scholarship may overlap with portions of the record pertaining to teaching. The candidate should state the field or fields they are contributing to.  When discussing research and scholarship, the self-assessment should include: the candidate’s scholarly contributions, scholarly impact, and if published,  a discussion of high quality venues for research dissemination and how they published in relation to those venues.   

Scholarly contributions should be arranged thematically, not chronologically.  The narrative should synthesize the work for the reader.  Scholarly impact can and should be demonstrated in a variety of ways.  While citation measures, journal impact factors, conference acceptance rates, and google scholar metrics are expected for published scholarship, other forms of scholarly impact can be discussed, including, but not limited to, quality of venue for dissemination, effect on systems design, policy, law, etc.  It is expected that there is some comparison within a peer group, when possible. 

Service, Leadership, and Professionalism

Quality service to the school, university, and profession is a sign of a good community member.  The School values the presence of our community members in the school, working toward common aims to improve research, teaching, and learning. 

Inclusion, Diversity, Equity, Access, and Sovereignty Work 

Where the candidate has done work in IDEAS in any area, the School encourages them to provide either a description that is integrated into the other sections of the self-review, or a stand-alone section.   

Section 3: Summer Addendum

All materials, except the summer addendum, are due by June 15 in the year of the intended promotion. However, it is  understood that noteworthy accomplishments, related to faculty work, may be announced or come to fruition between when the documentation is submitted and when the faculty above rank deliberate the case.  In order to account for these accomplishments from June 15 to September 15, candidates are invited to submit a one-page summer addendum. This addendum is due September 15 in the year of the intended promotion deliberation.

Appendix 2 

This appendix describes the process by which the Information School reviews exhibition work. 

In the case where faculty members list exhibitions in their CV, a review shall be conducted by a chosen expert.  The process for choosing an expert follows thePromotion Case Committee (PCC) Charge in form, but with two changes.  Instead of six names provided by both the candidate and the PCC, they are to provide three each.  Further, a single PCC is struck for each exhibition to be reviewed, and then dissolved when the names are delivered to the Dean’s office (via Faculty Affairs). That is, the exhibition PCC is not intended to be made up of the same faculty above rank as the PCC that is outlined in the Promotion Case Committee Charge.  The PCC process provides both candidate and faculty input into the choice of reviewers for the exhibition, and that is why the School follows this process.