Faculty Promotion Criteria & Guidelines
Promotion Guidelines from Assistant Professor Tenure Track to Associate Professor with Tenure
Approved by the Faculty on May 1, 2026
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, 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. When reviewing the candidate's materials and external letters, faculty above rank will look for evidence of depth, richness, and nuance in thinking. Several additional factors can inform 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. You are encouraged to use a range of metrics and evidence to demonstrate the impact of your work. Metrics (whether quantitative or qualitative) without context cannot always tell the full story. The UW Research Impact Guide and UW Impact Factors Guide are resources for demonstrating the impact of your work using a variety of metrics and evidence.
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.
The composition of the portfolio of published works constitutes a significant part of the scholarly record. 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.
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.
The University of Washington recognizes community engagement as a core component of its public mission. Further, the UW Faculty code explicitly recognizes community-engaged research as a form of scholarly achievement (FCG Section 24-32-B). The UW Community Engagement Knowledge Hub contains resources for defining and evaluating community-engaged scholarship and research, as distinct from other community-engaged activities. Community-engaged scholarship includes not only original research but also the integration of knowledge across disciplines, the application of knowledge to real-world problems, and the study and improvement of teaching. High-quality community-engaged scholarship is intellectually rigorous, involves reciprocal and non-extractive engagement with community partners, and yields demonstrable public impacts beyond individual encounters. In addition to providing evidence of impactful and ethical community-engaged work, candidates are encouraged to demonstrate how their community-engaged research has advanced knowledge in their scholarly field.
Outside funding of research from prestigious foundations and institutes (in those disciplines where it is available and when adequate funding opportunities exist) 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.
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 out the work.
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.
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 strong teaching record is a necessary part of a successful tenure and promotion case. The faculty member’s teaching record should demonstrate evidence of the five core elements of effective teaching as outlined in Faculty Code 24-32 C. These core elements are:
Aligned: Effective teaching is intentionally designed and organized to help learners meet learning objectives.
Inclusive and equitable: Effective teaching considers learners’ experiences and creates opportunities for each learner to thrive.
Active and engaged: Effective teaching creates opportunities for learners to critically engage with ideas and each other.
Growth-oriented: Effective teaching creates opportunities for learners to learn through practice and provides feedback that helps them grow their knowledge and abilities.
Relevant: Effective teaching helps learners understand why what they are learning matters and prepares them for future learning and life after the UW.
Tenure will not be granted at the Information School without evidence of excellent 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 10 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 be 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 be 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, and our commitment to IDEAS is explicitly affirmed as one of our core values. We recognize that faculty in the iSchool come from a wide range of backgrounds, geographies, histories, and lived experiences. As a result, we do not all share the same assumptions about the generational and systemic forms of oppression and privilege that shape constraints, opportunities, and experiences of recognition and belonging in academic contexts. Our community and our processes are open to all, and we strive to ensure equitable access and participation throughout.
We invite, but do not require, candidates to demonstrate how their research, teaching, and service engage with contemporary best practices for supporting a diverse, equitable, and inclusive environment. In teaching, this may include careful attention to creating classroom formats and modes of participation that are accessible to all students (e.g., international students, students with disabilities, first-generation students), as well as designing course content that reflects diverse viewpoints and approaches (e.g., readings from the Global South or place-based education). In research, this may involve working with communities (e.g., “Radical Partnerships”), intentionally engaging with issues affecting marginalized populations, or practicing citational justice. Where equity and accessibility have guided scholarship, course design, leadership, or service, candidates should describe this clearly in their narrative. Doing so allows reviewers and faculty above rank to understand both the intentions and the actions demonstrated in the candidate’s record.
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 (optional)
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 on the 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 on the tenure track will want to pause their tenure and promotion clock. The Office of Academic Personnel and Faculty provides a complete list of promotion and tenure clock waivers (APF: Promotion and Tenure Clock Waivers). 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 March 15 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.