Criteria and guidelines for promotion from associate professor to professor

Approved by the Faculty on June 3, 2022

Introduction

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

UW Faculty Code 24-34 A 3 outlines the qualifications for professor: 

“Appointment to the rank of professor requires outstanding, mature scholarship as evidenced by accomplishments in teaching, and/or accomplishments in research as evaluated in terms of national or international recognition. For tenured, tenure-eligible, or WOT appointments, both of these shall be required.”

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 promotion

The decision about promotion from associate professor to professor is one of the more important decisions that we make. To obtain this rank, a candidate must be highly regarded as a leader in their area of expertise in the field.

Promotion to the rank of professor 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 evidence of quality, quantity, and trajectory in the record. The candidate is expected to demonstrate strength in research and teaching, as well as service and leadership. Although excellence in one of these areas may slightly outweigh that in another, no area of weakness must exist. 

At the Information School we value interdisciplinary work and collaborative work with other units and disciplines within the University of Washington, nationally, and internationally. Therefore, 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. For a successful application, 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, the scholarly forms and venues for publishing used in the field(s) identified, and to provide evidence that their record meets the University’s expectations. (See Chapter 24 of the University of Washington Faculty Code.) Guidelines concerning iSchool expectations follow.

Research and Scholarship

In the evaluation of the independent scholarly record of a faculty member at the Information School, quality is more important than quantity, in general; although there must be sufficient quantity to provide evidence of a significant level of scholarly productivity. For promotion to professor, the maturity of a research agenda and the impact of the candidate’s publications on their field are paramount. Several factors influence the assessment of the maturity of a scholarly record. Uniqueness of creativity and individuality of scholarship are valued, so it is recognized that there will be some variance among candidates regarding which factors weigh most heavily. Nonetheless, the commonality among all senior faculty members is that their work is widely recognized as significant, and that letters from reviewers recognize the outstanding and mature research record. The outside reviewers should be of full professor rank or of comparable rank at national and international peer institutions. 

It is expected that a candidate for full professor can demonstrate international research impact.

Evidence of outstanding, mature research includes: 

Sustained commitment to excellence in scholarship, such as a stable and continuous stream of publications in top-ranked venues, support from prestigious research funding agencies in which the candidate is a principal investigator, a co-principal investigator, or significant contributor, statements of outside reviewers that indicate excellence in scholarship; 

A clear and productive research path to the present and the future; 

Substantial growth since the promotion to associate professor, such as expanding the candidate’s expertise to new fields, providing new and unique insights in the area of expertise, developing previous work substantially; 

Leadership in the field, such as statements of outside reviewers that indicate that the candidate’s work is shaping the discourse and work in the field, leadership positions in scholarly organizations, national and international invitations for scholarly presentations and collaborations; 

A demonstrated impact on the field, such as testimony of outside reviewers, impressive citation count and other metrics, inclusion in citation studies of top researchers, visible and constructive application of the candidate’s work in practice (e.g., system design, policy, information science education, professional practice, obtaining a patent, etc.), translation of the candidate’s publications into other languages, being published in top-ranked venues.

Additional evidence of outstanding, mature research may include: 

Receipt of public recognition and awards for research work from recognized academic and other scholarly institutions, and from professional associations; outstanding success in directing productive work by advanced students and in training graduate and professional students in scholarly methods; active participation through publication in discussions about methods and theoretical traditions in the information field; positive reviews of published scholarly work(s). 

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. 

On top of the considerations mentioned above, the decision regarding promotion to professor is accorded only to those who maintain outstanding and mature scholarship; therefore, the candidate’s record must reflect this.

Teaching and Mentoring

An excellent teaching record, a mature approach to one’s philosophy of teaching and teaching mission, and leadership are necessary parts of a successful case for promotion to professor. Teaching is viewed broadly, including curriculum planning, course design, student evaluations and 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 outstanding, mature teaching includes: a clear compatibility between one’s research, teaching, and to a reasonable extent, service; visible integration of currently relevant research in course development and updating; evidence of consistently and successfully encouraging discussion and debate that enables the students to articulate the ideas they are exploring; a significant body of course evaluations from UW in which high scores are received in the following categories: the quality of the course as a whole, the course content, the instructor’s contribution, and the instructor’s effectiveness; peer reviews that point to the excellence of teaching and to a continued growth; and the students’ experience.

Evidence of leadership in teaching, such as leading a curriculum or program revision, initiating a venue for on-going discussions about teaching in a certain area, conducting and publishing research about teaching in the information field, participating in national and international working groups about teaching, mentoring students (e.g., advising students on all levels, guiding teaching practical with doctoral students, and serving as chair or a member of doctoral committees), writing a textbook or developing other educational materials (e.g., software, design tools); 

Evidence of recognition in teaching, such as receipt of public recognition and awards for teaching from recognized academic and other scholarly institutions, or from professional associations.

Service and Leadership

Communities thrive when all members contribute to the common good. Thus, we expect that candidates for promotion will demonstrate sustained involvement in the life of the Information School, and at a senior level, in the life of the University at large, in the local and broader community of scholars and professionals, and in their national and international associations. The University and the 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. Candidates for promotion to professor are expected to be regarded as leaders in the School, at the University, and in their professional lives as well as in scholarship. Service should be visible to others—the senior professor here, too, becomes a role model.

Faculty lead by example.  Leadership is showing up, fully, to work on service that benefits the whole. This includes informed presence in faculty meetings as well as actively engaging in the committee work and working towards improvement, and interacting with other members of the community with respect and courtesy. We expect candidates for promotion to have demonstrated, year over year, a sustained quality commitment to the iSchool and University community, 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, the same assumptions about generational and systemic constraints and affordances. Accounting for how we can teach, serve, and do research for traditionally underrepresented groups, and how we lead other faculty in these spaces, 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 and error-free Curriculum Vitae (CV) (See Appendix 1, Section 1)
• External self-assessment (fewer than 15 pages) discussing research, service, optionally IDEAS work (See Appendix 1, Section 2a)
• Internal self-assessment (not to exceed 15 pages) discussing research, teaching, service, 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 
• Peer evaluations of teaching 

Evidence Requested by the School

• Three to six reference letters from faculty at the rank of professor or equivalent 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

Associate professors are not on a mandatory promotion timeline. In the normal course of career progression, candidates interested in promotion to professor should consult with their mentors and the faculty above rank about their record in relation to the criteria and guidelines set out in this document.  This usually occurs, at a minimum, five years after promotion from assistant to associate professor.

Faculty careers have periods of higher and lower productivity.  This is the normal ebb and flow of associate professors’ careers.  Faculty above rank evaluate the overall record of the candidate. Faculty above rank may have questions about periods of high or low productivity.  Anticipating these questions in the self-assessment is helpful for the candidate’s case.

When it is clear to the candidate, the mentors, and the faculty above rank that the candidate has a viable case for promotion, they prepare their packets in the autumn of the year before consideration, 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 that 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 that same year. This year of preparing and submitting materials is called the candidate’s submission year.  The following academic year is called the review year.

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 submission year and beginning of the review year.

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.

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.