Faculty Promotion Criteria & Guidelines
Promotion Guidelines from Associate Professor to Professor
Approved by the Faculty on May 1, 2026
Introduction
This document lays out the criteria for promotion from associate professor to professor. It also describes evidence considered and timing of promotions.
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 and , the , and
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. When reviewing the candidate's materials and external letters, faculty above rank will look for evidence of depth, richness, and nuance in thinking.
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. Candidates for full professor are encouraged to use a range of metrics and evidence to demonstrate the impact of their work. Metrics (whether quantitative or qualitative) without context cannot always tell the full story. The and are resources for demonstrating the impact of your work using a variety of metrics and evidence.
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 (). The 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.
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 both national and 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 (when adequate funding opportunities exist) 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.
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.
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 markers of excellence in student feedback 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, 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 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 (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
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 July15 of that year. Before this, the candidate will submit six names of potential reviewers and a current CV (see ), 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
When preparing their CV for promotion, faculty candidates are encouraged to consult the following resources:
and (from Information School)
Faculty are encouraged to share and seek feedback from their mentors (formal and informal)
Section 2: Self-Assessment
With respect to the self-assessment, UW Office for Academic Personnel and Faculty says:
“The self-assessment is one of the most important documents in the promotion packet. It provides a narrative storyline of the faculty member’s accomplishments while in rank. The self- assessment is not meant to be a retelling of what is listed on the CV. Instead, this is the document that the faculty candidate writes to contextualize, highlight, and synthesize their significant, high-quality, and impactful accomplishments in the domains of research/scholarship, teaching, and service, ensuring that this addresses their current and potential impact to their field.” (APF: )
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 detailed 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. As noted above, metrics (whether quantitative or qualitative) without context cannot always tell the full story. The and are resources for demonstrating the impact of your work using a variety of metrics and evidence.
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 July15 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 July15 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 e 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.