1. What Matters in Tenure Decisions in the College: Unofficial Advice Michael Knapp & a Cast of Thousands April 10, 2015

2. At Another Time and in Another Place…. DH: So what do I need to do to get tenure in this college? [Not UW/COE] Dr. W: It’s simple. Here is a list of 6 journals. They are widely considered the top ones. Just get two articles per year into them—that’s about a dozen by the time you’re up for a tenure vote. And you’re in… Miss that mark and you won’t last long in this place. June 3, 2011

3. The Burning Questions June 3, 2011 What matters in tenure decisions in this College? What do I need to do—and show in a promotion file— to get there?

4. There are Answers…. At least 35 different ones [the number of senior faculty] ….and they don’t all agree. [Need they?].But there are central tendencies, and predictable differences of view…. ….unofficially represented in a document: “What Matters in Tenure Decisions: Unofficial Advice to Junior Faculty about the Tenure File” June 3, 2011

5. UW’s Criterion June 3, 2011 “Appointment to the rank of Associate Professor requires a record of substantial success in both teaching and research…” (UW Faculty code 24-34A).

6. The “Unofficial Advice” Document and Where it Came From June 3, 2011 What it purports to represent: The actual, collective criteria, operative across assistant-to-associate promotions in the last two decades in this College, within a conceptual organizer that seeks to capture how we think and act. Where it comes from: A read of all of the assistant promotion files + votes in 20 years Participation on 6-8 promotion committees (assistant) and 6-7 more (associate to full) Participation in college-wide promotion discussion meetings What it isn’t: Systematic peer-refereed research A consensus document

7. Central Claims of the Document No single set of criteria come into play in this College, nor are there measures or indicators upon which there is complete agreement. There are many possible—and different— tenurable promotion files. Assessors pay attention to Research, Teaching, and Service—in that order (with greatest weight placed on the Research, and least on Service). June 3, 2011

8. Who Matters in Tenure Decisions Subcommittee for Promotion ReviewExternal Reviewers Committee (SPR ) (in comparable R-1s) COE Senior Faculty The Dean College Advisory Council (CAC) University Provost Review Committee June 3, 2011

9. What Matters in Scholarship June 3, 2011

10. The Quality Standard Assessors are likely to pay attention to— 1. The importance (by their lights) of what you study 2. The theoretical and technical sophistication of the research 3. The generativity of the research 4. The coherence of your research program 5. The independence of your research June 3, 2011 Likely indicators: Publication in refereed outlets (especially “good” ones) Solo or lead authorship Testimony by Significant Others (e.g., External Reviewers) Evidence your work is used by scholars Receipt of funding through competitive sources Awards and other forms of recognition

11. The Impact Standard Assessors are likely to pay attention to— 1. Cogency and accessibility to practitioner, policy, or public audiences 2. Relevance to pressing concerns 3. Grounding in high-quality investigations, analysis 4. Reach to key audiences, users 5. Educative value June 3, 2011 Likely indicators: Publication in wide-circulation practice-focused outlets (esp. “good” ones) Solo or lead authorship Testimony by Significant Others (e.g, prominent practitioners) Evidence your work is used by practitioners, policymakers, etc. Receipt of funding for “applied” or “engaged” scholarship” Awards and other forms of recognition

12. The Productivity Standard Assessors are likely to pay attention to— 1. Quantity of scholarly production (at least up to a threshold) 2. Regularity of scholarly production 3. Frequency and amount of support for scholarly work 4. Prospects for continued production after tenure June 3, 2011 Likely indicators: Count of refereed articles/products (especially in “good” outlets) Count of other kinds of scholarly products Timing of publications (e.g., regularity over time) Amount of money secured as a Principal Investigator or Co- Investigator Work under review in refereed journals or other evidence of work in progress.

13. What Matters in Teaching…. Assessors are likely to pay attention to— 1. Quality of your “intended” curriculum 2. Quality of response to your “enacted” curriculum 3. Contribution to the full range of college and programmatic instructional needs June 3, 2011 Likely indicators: Quality of syllabi and other aspects of instructional planning Quality of student engagement, interaction, treatment of diversity, etc. in the classroom Use of powerful pedagogies and technologies Demand for your courses and numbers/SCH enrolling in them Student ratings, evaluations Balance/coverage of important course needs

14. …and Advising Assessors are likely to pay attention to-- The quality of mentoring you provide your advisees or supervisory committee students—e.g., indicated by the advisees’ progress towards degrees, socialization into scholarly/professional communities, demand for your mentorship…. Proportional contribution to overall College or programmatic advising needs (allowing for relatively light loads for junior faculty– e.g., indicated by your taking a “fair share” of advisees, advising both doctoral and Masters students, regular participation on supervisory committees …. June 3, 2011

15. What Matters in Service 1.Good citizenship in the College… 2.Good citizenship in the University… 3.Good citizenship in the local and state community… 4.Contribution to the profession… 5.Contribution to the nation… June 3, 2011

16. Seeking a Whole that is Greater than the Sum of the Parts This College community appears to value-- Integration (e.g. files in which research, teaching, and service inform each other) Balance (e.g., files in which different kinds of contributions and accomplishments are appropriately balanced) Connection (e.g., files that demonstrate connectedness to College priorities, interaction with different people and programs) Visibility (e.g., files that document work of all kinds that attracts attention internally and externally) June 3, 2011