Criteria and guidelines for promotion and tenure from assistant professor tenure track to associate professor with tenure

Approved by the Faculty on June 3, 2022

Introduction

This document lays out the criteria for promotion from assistant to associate professor.  It also describes evidence considered and timing of promotions.

UW Faculty Code 24-34 A 2 outlines the qualifications for associate professor: 

“Appointment to the rank of associate professor requires a record of substantial success in teaching and/or research. For tenured, tenure-eligible, or WOT appointments, both of these shall be required, except that in unusual cases an outstanding record in one of these activities may be considered sufficient.”

Other relevant documents and policies are: The iSchool Promotion Policies and Procedures and Promotion Case Committee Charge, the UW Promotion and Tenure documents, and UW Faculty Code.

Expectations for tenure and promotion

The decision about tenure and promotion from assistant professor to associate professor is one of the most important decisions that we make. It is a decision that combines an assessment of the record to date and a projection of a career into the future. While the precise opportunities and expectations vary, they all involve some measure of quality, quantity, and trajectory in the record.

At the Information School we value interdisciplinary work and collaborative work with other units and disciplines within UW, nationally, and internationally. Work that is integrated and cross-disciplinary is very important in the information field. Nonetheless, we recognize that Information School faculty members work within a variety of disciplinary styles and traditions, and that the scholarly record of each of us may reflect a particular style or tradition. Therefore, it is incumbent upon the faculty member to articulate within what field(s) their record of accomplishments in scholarship, teaching, and service is to be judged, to convey which scholarly forms and venues are used for scholarly dissemination, and to provide evidence their record meets the school’s, the University’s, and the field’s expectations. 

What follows are criteria the iSchool expects to see from assistant professors who are being considered for promotion to associate.

Research and Scholarship

At the Information School, expectations regarding the independent scholarly record of our faculty are high. In general, quality is more important than quantity, although there must be sufficient quantity to provide evidence of a significant level of scholarly productivity. Several factors influence the assessment of the quality of a scholarly record.

At more senior levels, quality is often measured by citations or other indicators of the impact of scholarship. At the junior level, quality is most often demonstrated by the quality of the journals, conference proceedings, presses, or other venues in which the individual publishes.

The impact/significance of the scholarship is determined by the comments from outside reviewers, tempered by the assessment of the faculty above rank with the same or similar expertise.

Outside funding of research from prestigious foundations and institutes (in those disciplines where it is available) can be viewed as a significant part of the scholarly record, depending on the relative size of the grant and the significance of the questions posed.

The composition of the portfolio of published works also matters. For example, a collection of good but unconnected articles may not produce the same sense of impact that a set of articles advancing a coherent line of scholarship would. It is not unprecedented, though, for faculty to shift scholarly areas of focus, even at the junior level. The personal statement provided by the candidate is a very important guide to the significance of each scholarly piece and their connection to each other.

The scholarly record should provide clear evidence of independent thinking and research. Thus, although many junior scholars continue to do some collaborative work with a former Ph.D. or postdoc advisor, it is important to establish a record of growing independence from former advisors.

Invitations to talk at other universities and prestigious events add to the scholarly record, but generally play a relatively minor role independent of other measures of the scholarly record.

We do encourage collaborative work; thus co-authored articles and creative works are given important weight. It is, however, necessary to identify the contributions of the candidate to these articles and works. A significant portion of the overall research record should include articles and works to which the candidate has made the primary contributions and all contributions in the scholarly record should be clearly identified.

We expect to see evidence of the ability to acquire and manage resources needed to support the chosen research path.  This may include grants, but could also be fellowships, stipends, bursaries, or other relevant and appropriate resources to carry about the work.

Given that the decision regarding tenure is very much about future expectations, the trajectory of scholarly productivity is carefully considered. The acceptance/publication of articles just before tenure is carefully scrutinized in order to determine the extent to which it reflects a genuine timely outcome of a growing scholarly record as opposed to a belated effort to increase its quantity.  Therefore, we encourage junior faculty to establish and maintain a steady rhythm of scholarly dissemination over the course of their time as assistant professors.

In sum, excellence in research and scholarship is a record of 1) quality, 2) impactful, 3) sustained, and 4) coherent work. The record must contain peer reviewed material. Further, a record that represents fewer than three of the four categories, or is weak in all four, is considered a mediocre or lackluster case of research and scholarship. A record that only represents one of the four categories, or is weak in two and leaves two out, is a poor case of research and scholarship. 

Teaching and Mentoring

A good teaching record is a necessary part of a successful tenure and promotion case. Tenure will not be granted at the Information School without evidence of good teaching. An exceptional teaching record cannot substitute for an unacceptable scholarly record. Teaching is viewed broadly, including curriculum planning, course design, student success, and mentoring. It is expected that a complete record of teaching performance will include independent study, capstone sponsored projects or research, thesis, and dissertation advising data, and that information relevant to demonstrating the quality of the training received by individual students in these contexts will be included as appropriate.  Evidence of success in these areas will be judged using the following materials.

• Student evaluations of teaching: Candidates are expected to have course evaluations for a large percentage, if not all, of the courses taught at the UW. 

•  Peer evaluations of teaching: The Faculty Code calls for peer review each year for assistant professors, and these reviews are an important part of the candidate's record. 

• Syllabi of all courses taught at the University of Washington.

 We will also consider the self-review of teaching in the form of our iSchool holistic teaching rubric.

As with research and scholarship, there is a fundamental interest in the trajectory of teaching quality. Most faculty show marked improvement during their first years as they gain experience and support.  That means we need to see significant amounts of teaching each year leading up to the fifth year.  Unless otherwise justified, we expect to see at least 10 courses, at least 5 student evaluations of teaching, and at least 5 peer evaluations of teaching in the packet.

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. This is done in a separate document appended to the self-assessment.

Mentoring of peers and students is a requirement at the more senior levels, however, demonstration of student mentorship is also considered part of the well-rounded life of a researcher.  Mentorship can come in many forms, including, but not limited to, capstone sponsorship, independent study sponsorship, and graduate student thesis research.  Evidence of this work should appear in the CV and discussed in the self-review as well.

Service and Leadership

Communities thrive when all members contribute to the common good. Thus, we expect that candidates for tenure and promotion will have been involved in the life of the Information School, and hopefully in the life of the University and their national associations. The University and the Information School have also made engagement with the broader public one of our institutional goals. It is desirable to show evidence of contributions to or engagement with the broader community (in some cases this may be part of the job expectations), but this must be put into conscientious relation to quality service provided to the School and University. 

Faculty lead by example.  Leadership is showing up, fully, to work on service that benefits the whole.  Signaling an informed presence in faculty meetings and traversing the committee work of the year with compassion signals professionalism (caring for the work and caring for those who do the work).  We expect candidates for promotion to have demonstrated, year over year, a commitment to the iSchool and University community, and a commitment to leadership.

Inclusion, Diversity, Equity, Access, and Sovereignty 

The Information School values diverse voices. We acknowledge that not everyone who finds themselves in the faculty comes from the same lived experience. We all do not share the same assumptions about generational and systemic constraints and affordances.  Accounting for how we can teach, serve, and do research for traditionally underrepresented groups is an additional consideration in promotion cases.  Where 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 research design, course design, and in leadership and service 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.

Evidence Considered in the Promotion Process

Evidence Prepared by the Candidate

• A complete, up-to-date, and error-free Curriculum Vitae (CV) (See Appendix 1, Section 1)
• External self-assessment (fewer than 15 pages) discussing research, service, leadership, and optionally IDEAS work (See Appendix 1, Section 2a)
• Internal self-assessment (not to exceed 15 pages) discussing research, teaching, service, leadership and optionally IDEAS work (See Appendix 1, Section 2b)
• A co-authorship document that details the roles in authorship and the relationships between co-authors
• A reflection on student evaluation of teaching for scores at or below 3.0
• Holistic teaching rubric (optional)
• Three to five representative publications
• Summer addendum (See Appendix 1, Section 3)

Evidence Prepared by the School on behalf of the Candidate

• Student evaluations of teaching (minimum 5)
• Peer evaluations of teaching (5, one for each year, for a conventional case, See Going up early for promotion below)

Evidence Requested by the School

• Three to six reference letters from faculty above rank from peer institutions
• Reviews of exhibition work or other installations described in the CV and/or the self-assessment (See Appendix 2)

Timing of Promotion

Assistant professors tenure track are on a mandatory promotion timeline. In the normal course of career progression, candidates for promotion and tenure prepare their packets in the autumn of their fifth year, submitting their CV, both their internal and external self-assessment, co-authorship documents (if needed), and three to five representative publications by June 15 of their fifth year.  Before this, the candidate will submit six names of potential reviewers and a current CV (see Promotion Case Committee Charge), by April 1 of their fifth year. 

It is recommended that candidates have their mentors review all documentation, including the external reviewer list, well before June 15 of their fifth year.  If desired, the candidate can invite other faculty above rank, other than their mentor, to weigh in on their candidacy.  There is an expectation that faculty above rank will be as generous with their time as is reasonable.  If a draft of the documentation for promotion is mostly complete in the Autumn Quarter of the fifth year, then this provides maximum flexibility to arrange such conversations.

Once the candidate submits their documentation, the school sends the CV, external self-assessment, the co-authorship document (if present), and three to five representative publications to external reviewers who have agreed to review the case.  These reviews are due in late summer/early fall at the end of the fifth year and beginning of the sixth.

These letters, and all other evidence listed above, except the external self-review, are provided to the faculty above rank, who then meet to discuss and vote on the case.

Pauses to the tenure and promotion clock

There are many reasons why an assistant professor tenure track will want to pause their tenure and promotion clock. Academic Human Resources provides a complete list of clock changes [Academic HR. (2022). Promotion and Tenure Clock Changes]. Contact the Associate Dean for Faculty Affairs or the Director of Faculty Human Resources if you have questions.

When a pause to the tenure and promotion clock is observed, this is recorded and accounted for in both the timeline for the case and in review of the materials prepared for the case. 

Going up early for promotion and tenure

In some instances, candidates may desire or be encouraged to go up for promotion early, that is, before the sixth year of their appointment at the University.  The candidate is then encouraged to provide the Dean and the faculty above rank a full, error-free, and up-to-date CV so they may counsel the candidate on timing. This should happen before March 15 of the year before consideration. That is, if the candidate wants to be considered for promotion and tenure in their fifth year, counseling on going up early should happen before March15 of the fourth year at the University.

It is desirable that a letter, detailing the candidate’s rationale, accompany the self-assessment and other promotion materials. A letter will have a rationale for early consideration based on evidence of quality, peer reviewed, impactful, sustained, and coherent scholarship that is demonstrated, among other ways, with comparisons to peers, appropriate metrics of impactful and useful scholarship, an adequate number of good teaching evaluations, and a statement on service commitment to the school, university, and the profession.   

In some cases, assistant professors arrive with experience as an assistant professor at another institution.  In these cases, Faculty Affairs discloses the amount of time negotiated by the dean and the candidate on the tenure clock. In these cases the Dean will ask that the entire record, post terminal degree, be considered, not just time at the University of Washington.

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
• 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

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 to Faculty 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].

Section 2a: iSchool Requirements for the External Self-Assessment

The external self-assessment includes everything except an in-depth discussion of teaching.  Since external reviewers do not have access to evidence of teaching quality, it is optional for candidates to include a discussion of teaching in the external self-assessment.  Mentoring and advising, as evidenced in the CV, can be addressed in the self-assessment.

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

Research and Scholarship

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 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, we encourage other forms of scholarly impact to be discussed, including, but not limited to, quality of venue for dissemination, effect on systems design, policy, law, etc.  We also expect 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.  We value 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, we encourage them to provide either a description that is integrated into the other sections of the self-review, or a stand-alone section. 

OPTIONAL: Advising and Mentoring

Some external letter writers want to comment, in some way, on the teaching, advising, and mentoring work of the candidate. Because external reviewers do not have access to the evaluations of teaching (student or peer), candidates may include their advising and mentoring activities in the self-review and in the CV.

Section 2b: iSchool Requirements for the Internal Self-Assessment

Because the faculty above rank have access to evidence of teaching quality, the internal self-assessment must include a discussion of teaching.  Mentoring and advising, as evidenced in the CV, can and should be addressed in the self-assessment.  The remainder of the internal self-assessment is identical to the external self-assessment in content and scope.

Section 3: Summer Addendum

All materials, except the summer addendum, are due by June 15 of the fifth year.  However, we understand 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 at the end of the fifth year, beginning of the sixth. 

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 the Promotion Case Committee 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 we follow this process.