College of MedicineCollege of MedicineAboutDepartments & UnitsFaculty AffairsPromotion and Tenure InformationTenure and Promotion Information and Procedures Tenure and Career Tracks

Tenure and Promotion Information and Procedures Tenure and Career Tracks

The information contained is consistent with the WSU Faculty Manual, Provost’s guidelines, and College of Medicine guidelines. However, in the case of a discrepancy, the Faculty Manual and the Provost’s guidelines supersede the information contained on this page. 

Table of Contents 

Executive Summary

Promotion and tenure are important professional accomplishments in faculty careers. Both confirm your peers’ and the University’s assessment of excellence in your designated areas of responsibility/workload to our collective missions in teaching and learning, research and scholarship, and service, outreach and engagement (both internally directed [e.g., academic service, governance, and leadership] and externally directed [e.g., professional organizations, advisory boards, peer review processes]), as well as your contributions to a positive community and culture. Both the process and the measures of productivity and quality must be selected carefully to minimize bias and provide a complete assessment of productivity, quality and impact. Faculty member’s contributions to their assigned roles in our collective missions are valued and rewarded – regardless of track. Both tenure track and career track have clear expectations and processes for promotion, including the expectation for a faculty member’s continuing growth and achievement. This document is intended to provide general guidance regarding processes, procedures, and expectations for annual review and promotion and tenure and should be read in the context of department, college and University guidelines and resources, and in particular with reference to the WSU Faculty Manual. These other sources are cited throughout the document. In no instance does the guidance in this document supersede the Faculty Manual nor guidelines issued by the Provost. Faculty are urged to maintain ongoing communication with their department chairs/unit supervisors in navigating all processes and procedures summarized on this page. 

Introduction

This page outlines tenure and promotion procedures and expectations for both tenure track and career track faculty in the Elson S. Floyd College of Medicine. It should be read in conjunction with the Faculty Manual, the Provost’s Instructions for Tenure and Promotion, the Provost’s Instructions for Annual Review and other pertinent memoranda and resources (e.g., Guidance for Documenting Impact), all available at Guidelines and Forms. The College’s Tenure and Promotion Guidelines and Career Sub-track Promotion Guidelines and department tenure and career sub-track promotion guidelines provide extensive detail and illustrative examples of effectiveness in teaching, precepting/ clinical supervision, clinical practice, research/scholarship/creative activities, administrative/academic leadership, and service/outreach. It is incumbent upon each faculty member to be familiar with the promotion and/or tenure guidelines specific to their career sub-track or tenure track appointment, as outlined in these documents. 

This information and procedures does not intended to be prescriptive. Rather, it is intended to provide information regarding processes, standards and expectations. The first section of this document addresses procedures for tenure and promotion and criteria for success for tenure track faculty. The second section addresses procedures for promotion of career track faculty and criteria for success. 

Guiding Principles 

Although few of us are deeply involved in all the traditional missions of our college, we collectively value and seek excellence in all five missions:

  1. Teaching and learning (including mentoring and advising).
  2. Research, scholarship, and creative activity.
  3. Academic and professional/national service (including peer review, grant panels, committees).
  4. Administrative and academic leadership.
  5. Service, outreach and engagement. What ultimately matters (i.e., what is valued and rewarded) is each faculty member’s respective contributions to our collective missions.

Accordingly, regardless of appointment track or sub-track, all faculty must be reviewed in accordance with the specific expectations/workload defined by their appointment and department, College, and University standards for promotion and/or tenure. See College of Medicine Faculty Appointment Policy.

General Considerations

Annual reviews provide faculty the opportunity to highlight, reflect on, and obtain feedback about their accomplishments and how this work enhances their overall career. Annual reviews provide an appraisal of the faculty member’s progress toward tenure and/or promotion. 

Faculty should maintain updated annual review documents. Doing so facilitates the faculty member’s preparation of documents required for tenure and/or promotion review. If, for any reason, a faculty member is not provided their annual review of the previous calendar year by June of the current year, they should reach out directly to their department chair or direct supervisor to inquire about its completion. Evaluators at all levels (i.e., faculty advisory recommendation committee, College’s Faculty Rank Promotion and Tenure Committee (FRPT), the Dean, and the Chancellor) assess cases on their merit and in relation to department, college, and university expectations and not in comparison with others in the department holding the rank to which the candidate aspires or being considered at the same time. 

Mentoring

Mentoring varies across departments and is conducted formally and informally. In all departments, however, early career and mid-career faculty should work with the department chair to establish a mentoring committee or other approach to mentoring to support the faculty member’s success and advancement. Mentoring should include reviewing promotion criteria early in the faculty member’s first semester in the College and throughout the early and mid-career stages. Faculty should confirm in writing (particularly if pertinent language does not appear in the appointment letter) to what extent if any work completed prior to WSU appointment will be “counted” towards promotion. Mentors can support faculty in a number of ways, including but not restricted to: facilitating introductions to other faculty doing similar or complementary work; reviewing teaching and assessment materials and approaches; reviewing grant applications and manuscripts for publication; feedback regarding the faculty member’s progress; consultation on the promotion process; support and guidance in the preparation of promotion materials; clarification of promotion criteria; advisement on professional development; and peer evaluation of didactic/classroom and clinical precepting. In addition to providing support for academic and professional success, mentoring can support work/life balance and navigating career and life transitions. Faculty are encouraged to review resources available at ADVANCE at WSU and through the National Center for Faculty Development and Diversity.

Section I: Procedures for Promotion/Tenure Review

Tenure track faculty workload expectations vary considerably across and within departments. Faculty must be reviewed in accordance with their defined responsibilities/official job description and department, College, and University standards. Faculty workload is specified in appointment letters and updated as needed during annual review. Annual performance reviews and tenure and/or promotion evaluations are tied to workload distribution and designed to provide formative feedback on progress towards tenure and promotion. 

Timing of Evaluations

Department chairs perform annual evaluations of all faculty members and convey the results of these evaluations to the faculty member and the Dean. Faculty receive either an Abridged Review, a Comprehensive Review, or an Intensive Review (see the Provost’s Instructions for Faculty and Administrative Professional Staff Annual Reviews. For pre-tenure faculty, a comprehensive review is performed each year and should include a review of annual accomplishments as well as a cumulative review of progress toward tenure. A formal intensive review (“third-year” review) of progress toward tenure is conducted by the department chair and forwarded to the dean, normally during the third year of appointment for faculty being considered for tenure in the sixth year of their probationary period. Tenured faculty receive a Comprehensive Review or Abridged Review in alternating years. 

The schedule for tenure review is specified in the original appointment letter. Generally, faculty members holding appointment at the rank of assistant professor will be reviewed for promotion to associate professor and tenure simultaneously. For faculty hired as a new assistant professor, tenure review shall normally take place during the sixth year of service at Washington State University with tenure, if granted, effective at the beginning of the seventh year. See the University Tenure Clock Schedule posted on the Provost’s Guidelines and Forms.

University Tenure Timeline

Tenure TypeAcademic Year 1  (AY) AY2 AY3 AY4 AY5 AY6 
Pre-Tenure Comprehensive (C) C Intensive (I) C C Promotion & Tenure Review 
Post-Tenure Abridged C Abridged C I* Eligible for Promotion  Review 
*Tenured faculty are strongly encouraged to request an intensive review in the spring prior to submitting materials for promotion consideration in the subsequent fall. 

Pre-Tenure Reviews 

Comprehensive Annual Reviews 

The goal of the annual comprehensive (cumulative) progress toward tenure review is to ready pre-tenure faculty for the intensive third year review and promotion and tenure reviews. Although some materials are not required for annual review, it is recommended that pre-tenure faculty draft and update regularly all materials that are required for the third-year/intensive review. Pre-tenured faculty received comprehensive annual reviews except for the third-year intensive review. Tenured faculty received comprehensive or abridged annual reviews in alternating years. 

All pre-tenure faculty should consult the Provost’s Promotion and Tenure Guidelines about required materials and processes, which are updated annually and usually posted in the spring preceding the review cycle (e.g., May 2022 for the 2022-2023 review cycle). 

Materials to be submitted by pre-tenure faculty for the annual comprehensive review are listed below. 

  • Updated Activity Insight report; 
  • Updated curriculum vitae; 
  • Summary of accomplishments, which includes an overview of the position (including percentages of appointment/workload distribution), teaching accomplishments, research/scholarly contributions, academic leadership and administrative contributions, and service/outreach/engagement accomplishments. The summary must include a review of annual accomplishments as well as a cumulative review of progress toward tenure since appointment to the tenure track. 

Intensive Review (Comprehensive Review plus Third-Year Career Progress Review) 

The intensive (third-year) review is a two-part review that includes a comprehensive review and a career progress review. It is designed to provide a cumulative and comprehensive review of performance to monitor prospects for success with the tenure process. Pre-tenured faculty typically undergo one intensive review (at the third year). (Note: Tenured faculty seeking promotion are encouraged to undergo an intensive review in the spring prior to the year they wish to be considered for promotion.) The comprehensive review is the same as described above. The career progress review evaluates the progress of the candidate toward tenure and/or promotion, provides feedback relative to university and department expectations, identifies areas for improvement, and offers recommendations that may assist the candidate in determining future work. 

The materials to be submitted for the intensive/third-year review are listed below (asterisked items* also are included in the comprehensive review): 

  • Updated Activity Insight report; 
  • Updated curriculum vitae; 
  • Summary of accomplishments, which includes an overview of the position (including percentages of appointment), teaching accomplishments, research and scholarly accomplishments, academic leadership and administrative contributions, and service, outreach, and engagement contributions. If the faculty member is pre-tenure, the summary should include a review of annual accomplishments as well as a cumulative review of progress toward tenure. 
  • Educator Portfolio for those engaged in teaching and/or mentoring.
  • Statements (e.g., research/scholarship, DEI work, context, service/outreach/engagement, COVID-19 Impact Statements – see: Faculty Resources for Documenting Impact and Guidance on Writing COVID-19 Impact Statements. All statements are limited to no more than two pages each. The College requires tenure track faculty to submit a research/scholarship statement for third-year/intensive review and tenure/promotion review. Candidates whose scope of work for the department, college, and/or university includes significant responsibilities in administrative or academic leadership should include an administrative/academic leadership statement (maximum two pages) in their portfolio. All other statements are optional. Faculty who prefer to do a single, integrated statement may do so; however, this statement should be limited to 5 pages. The research/scholarship statement clarifies the goals and objectives, themes, success, and challenges of their research or scholarly program. The context statement may elaborate one’s workload, include expectations placed on a faculty member by circumstances extant at research stations or regional campuses, the requirement of joint appointments or other special circumstances such as commitments to student groups. 
  • Supporting Materials in electronic form, wherever possible. DOIs can be supplied on the CV for manuscripts that are available electronically. Supporting material may include books, NIH Biosketch, selected publications, Web of Science Citation Map, and other evidence of the candidate’s teaching, research, scholarly, creative, and service/outreach/engagement activities. 

The career progress portion of the intensive review is coordinated by the chair and normally requires participation from all faculty and administrators eligible to perform tenure or promotion evaluations for the candidate. All tenured faculty members in the department (except those with personal conflicts of interest [e.g., spouses, family members] who are allowed to abstain) must complete an advisory recommendation to grant or not grant tenure and promotion. The chair prepares an administrative evaluation and recommendation, including a summary of the faculty advisory evaluations. For pre-tenured faculty, the intensive review procedures will match those for final tenure consideration, except that external professional evaluations/letters are not required. 

Review Processes 

Comprehensive Annual Review 

The comprehensive review is conducted by the department chair in consultation with appropriate faculty supervisors in Spokane and at any of the WSU system campuses, or other locations as appropriate. Each comprehensive review results in a written report from the chair, using the Comprehensive Review Administrative Form, to the Dean and Chancellor. The report must also be sent to the faculty member with an invitation to meet face-to-face with the chair, if the faculty member so desires. The chair and the faculty member must sign and date the comprehensive review whether or not a meeting is held. If an annual review rating of “some improvement needed” or “substantial improvement needed” is assigned, then the report will include a list of goals and expectations intended to help the faculty member achieve a “satisfactory” or higher annual review rating at the next review, which must be comprehensive (as always for pre-tenure faculty) for pre-tenure faculty receiving some improvement or substantial improvement needed rating. The review may also be intensive if the faculty member so requests. 

Intensive/Third-Year Career Progress Review 

Each intensive review results in two reports: a comprehensive review report and a career progress report. These administrative forms are posted Guidelines and Forms. The chair must meet with the candidate to discuss both reports. 

The comprehensive portion of the intensive/third-year review is conducted as stated above. The career progress portion of the intensive review is coordinated by the chair and normally requires participation from all faculty and administrators eligible to perform tenure or promotion evaluations for the candidate. All tenured faculty members in the department (except those with personal conflicts of interest [e.g., spouses, family members] who are allowed to abstain) must complete an advisory recommendation to grant or not grant tenure and promotion. It is the responsibility of the chair to ensure that all faculty eligible to submit advisory recommendations during annual comprehensive and intensive third-year review have available at the time of their deliberations all documents listed above. If fewer than five tenured department faculty hold the rank of associate or full professor, the chair will form an augmented advisory committee with concurrence of the Dean, Chancellor, and Provost. The pre-tenure faculty member does not provide any input on the formation of the augmented advisory committee. Advisory committee members may change for the tenure review due to changes in the department’s tenured faculty. Similarly, augmented advisory committee members may change for the tenure review at the discretion of the department chair, Dean, and Provost. 

Unit faculty/augmented committee members complete the pre-tenure Intensive Review Faculty Evaluation Form, at Guidelines and Forms. The department chair prepares a written summary evaluating tenure progress based on the individual faculty evaluations, the discussion at the meeting of tenured faculty, and the chair’s own evaluation. The chair should provide the candidate with a copy of the comprehensive review report and the career progress report prior to their meeting to discuss the results and implications of the intensive/pre-tenure review and invite the faculty member to react to the written evaluation. The faculty member and the chair sign and date the narrative portion of the career progress review evaluation. 

Faculty Responses to Annual Reviews 

After receiving the annual review report, the chair shall provide the faculty member a minimum of ten (10) business days to sign the report, indicating that the faculty member has had the opportunity to read the report and to discuss it with the chair and other appropriate faculty supervisors. A faculty member’s dissent regarding contents of the report may be appended to the signed report. When a dissent is appended, the faculty member must receive written acknowledgement within fifteen (15) business days that the statement has been reviewed by the Dean and Chancellor. At the same time that a response is sent to the faculty member, the Dean forwards to the Provost the annual review, the faculty member’s response to that review, and the Dean’s response to the faculty member. After receiving this information, the Provost has an additional fifteen (15) business days to provide a written acknowledgement to the faculty member and the Dean that all of the statements have been reviewed. 

Tenure and Promotion Review 

Faculty employed full time at the rank of assistant professor, or comparable rank, must be considered for tenure no later than the sixth year of service at Washington State University with tenure, if granted, effective at the beginning of the seventh year. Generally, recommendations for tenure will be made concurrently with a recommendation for promotion to associate professor. Tenure track faculty appointed part-time may be granted a longer period of time to meet standards for tenure and promotion. As stated in the WSU Faculty Manual: “The standards for tenure and promotion are the same for part-time faculty as for full-time faculty members except that part-time faculty members may be granted a proportionally longer period in which to meet these standards. For example, a faculty member with a 50% appointment should be given a probationary period of up to 12 years, whereas a faculty member with a 75% appointment should be given a probationary period of up to 8 years.” If a tenure track faculty member with a 50% appointment requests consideration for tenure and promotion prior to their 12th year in rank (unless it is stated otherwise in their appointment letter), the faculty member must seek approval from their chair, Dean and Provost for “early” consideration. 

Tenure and promotion candidates should submit a complete set of materials in accordance with instructions received each year from the Provost’s office. Guidelines and Forms. Candidates must submit: 

  • Updated curriculum vitae; 
  • Educator Portfolio
  • Statements (e.g., research/scholarship, clinical activity, DEI work, context, service/outreach/engagement, COVID-19 Impact – see: 2020 Guidance on Writing COVID-19 Impact Statements and Faculty Resources for Documenting Impact. Guidelines and Forms. All statements are limited to no more than two pages each. Faculty who prefer to do a single, integrated statement may do so; however, this statement should be limited to 5 pages. The College requires tenure track faculty to submit a research statement for promotion review. The research/scholarship statement clarifies the goals and objectives, themes, success, and challenges of their research or scholarly program. Candidates whose scope of work for the department, college, and/or university includes significant responsibilities in administrative or academic leadership should include an administrative/academic leadership statement (maximum two pages) in their portfolio. The context statement may elaborate one’s workload, include expectations placed on a faculty member by circumstances extant at research stations or regional campuses, the requirement of joint appointments or other special circumstances such as commitments to student groups. 
  • Supporting Materials in electronic form, wherever possible. DOIs can be supplied on the CV for manuscripts that are available electronically. Supporting material may include books, NIH Biosketch, selected publications, Web of Science Citation Map, and other evidence of the candidate’s teaching, clinical, research, scholarly, creative, service/outreach/engagement, and administrative/academic leadership activities. 
  • In addition, the department chair will solicit at least four external (from non-WSU employees) review letters from individuals of national stature in the candidate’s area of expertise (e.g., noted senior faculty, scholars, researchers, or clinicians at comparable or better institutions, research centers, or government or private-sector organizations). The role of the external review is to establish whether the tenure track faculty member has a national reputation and how that faculty member’s research/ scholarship compares to others at the same or similar time in rank. At a minimum, external reviewers should be provided the faculty member’s updated CV, research statement, and DOI links or PDFs of selective publications. 
  • Where appropriate, letter writers should hold a rank at least equal to the rank to which the candidate aspires. Letters should not be solicited from people who have a conflict of interest, such as a personal relationship with the candidate that goes beyond that of colleague (e.g., mentor, collaborators, partners, faculty who have conflict with candidate). The department chair contacts the external reviewers requesting their evaluation of the candidate’s qualifications for promotion and/or tenure. All letters received by the department by the time the case is forwarded to the Dean’s office must be included in the file. Two reviewers should come from a list supplied by the candidate; however, the candidate should not contact potential reviewers directly. Candidates who have pursued sustained work in communities, state and national agencies may also suggest among their possible external reviewers one or more evaluators (academic or non-academic) possessing significant experience in communities of practice relevant to the candidate’s scholarship. See Guidance for External/Internal Letters Tenure Promotion All Tracks Promotion and tenure information.
  • The external letters are available for review by the tenured faculty advisory recommendation committee, as well as the department chair, the College Faculty Rank Tenure and Promotion Committee (i.e., FRPT), the Dean, Chancellor, and the Provost. At least two of the letters in the final tenure/promotion portfolio must be from individuals not suggested by the faculty member. In the best interest of the candidate, and with transparency, the chair will contact the faculty member (the candidate) and give them one week to provide names of additional external reviewers should the candidate’s initial choices not be available. 
  • The department chair’s requests for letters should be couched in neutral terms, asking for “evaluation” rather than “support” and stating that the candidate is being “reviewed” not “recommended” for promotion and/or tenure. The department chair should assure that the language in the letter to external reviewers encourages an impartial, unbiased review of the candidate’s professional work and stature in the discipline. The materials submitted to the Dean include a brief bio of each external reviewer, identifying which were nominated by the candidate, as well as a copy of the letter sent to the external reviewers seeking the evaluation. 

It is required that the faculty advisory committee discuss the candidate’s case for tenure and/or promotion, including committee members at all campuses. Typically, the department chair convenes this meeting that allows all faculty members of the advisory committee, regardless of location, to provide and to hear information about any candidate’s progress and allow questions about progress to be asked and answered. 

The tenure and promotion packet (excluding annual reviews but including the external letters) is then reviewed by all members of the faculty advisory committee. Each member must complete an advisory recommendation to grant or not grant tenure and promotion. The tenure and promotion packet reviewed by the faculty advisory committee (as well as all involved in subsequent stages of the review process [i.e., FRPT, Dean, Chancellor, and Provost]) must include all materials provided the external reviewers, as well as all other materials prepared by the candidate (which should include an Educator Portfolio for those engaged in teaching and mentoring, and may also include a context statement, COVID impact statement, service/outreach/engagement statement, and DEI statement) to allow the faculty advisory committee to assess the candidate’s overall performance in all areas of the candidate’s workload. The chair prepares an administrative evaluation and recommendation, including results of the faculty advisory recommendations. The chair forwards the individual faculty advisory recommendations, the chair’s evaluation, along with the entire packet reviewed by the faculty advisory committee and the chair to the Dean. Concurrently, the chair forwards the administrative evaluation and recommendation along with the candidate’s packet (excluding the annual reviews and the faculty advisory recommendations) to the FRPT. FRPT assigns a subcommittee of three tenured members holding the rank of associate professor or professor to evaluate the candidate’s packet and provide a recommendation to the full FRPT. If there are fewer than three FRPT tenured members of appropriate rank, the FRPT chair invites non-FRPT members from across the College to serve on the subcommittee. FRPT members from the candidate’s department must recuse themselves from discussions regarding those candidates except to provide clarification of a department process, procedures, or practice, etc. The FRPT chair submits the advisory recommendation to the Dean. The Dean evaluates the candidate and forwards to the Chancellor for review. 

The entire tenure and promotion packet is provided to the Office of the Provost (typically during the last week of October) for review and a final decision on the granting of tenure and promotion. Candidates are typically notified of this decision in the subsequent spring. All promotions and tenure are effective July 1 (for faculty on annual appointments) and August 16 (for faculty on academic appointments) of the year after the promotion packet was submitted. Candidates who are not granted tenure will be given a one-year terminal appointment. 

All tenure cases must be forwarded to the Office of the Provost; however, the Dean, in consultation with the Chancellor may decide not to forward cases for promotion to Professor. The Dean must notify candidates in writing about whether their case for promotion to Professor will be forwarded to the Office of the Provost. Notification must occur within 10 working days of the decision. If the decision is to not forward the packet, the faculty member will be given a written justification. In addition, the faculty member will be given a minimum of five (5) working days to exercise the right to have the packet forwarded to the Provost, regardless of the Dean’s decision. 

Criteria for Awarding Tenure and Promotion to Associate Professor 

There is no more serious activity for a university faculty than the consideration of colleagues for promotion in rank or granting of indefinite tenure. Both promotion and tenure decisions must be based on demonstrated excellence in accordance with the specific expectations/workload defined by their appointment and within the context of department, College, and University standards for promotion and/or tenure. Excellence in research/scholarly activity is broadly defined by Boyer to include the scholarship of discovery, scholarship of integration, scholarship of application, and scholarship of teaching). Excellence in teaching includes didactic instruction, clinical precepting, and mentoring and advising. Excellence in service includes outreach and engagement; academic service, governance, and leadership; and professional/disciplinary service that supports professional organizations, advisory boards, peer review processes, etc.. While all three of these aspects are considered in tenure and promotion decisions, as members of a research-intensive institution, faculty must provide evidence of a focused research program in addition to demonstrating effectiveness in teaching and service contributions. Because missions overlap, a faculty member may report an activity and outcome under more than one mission area. Faculty should identify a primary area of attribution for any reported activity (usually in accordance with their primary assigned responsibilities). However, that activity might be co-listed under another mission. For example, research and scholarship often involve significant mentoring and advising; outreach and engagement often involve teaching through formal course offerings and/or other diverse settings; teaching and learning may generate publications and lead to extramural funding. Decisions on tenure and promotion from assistant professor to associate professor are based on consistent, sustained, and significant achievement in scholarly activity, effective teaching, and sufficient service activities to support the mission of the department, college, and university. The assessments provided in external letters from individuals of national stature in the candidate’s area of expertise (e.g., noted senior faculty, scholars, researchers, or clinicians at comparable or better institutions, research centers, or government or private-sector organizations) serve an important role in evaluating the candidate’s achievements, especially in research and scholarship. It is important that pre-tenured faculty monitor their profile of duties and contributions during the pre-tenure period so that they are able to establish a productive and programmatic line of research/scholarship. Mentors and department chairs should assist the pre-tenured faculty in doing so. Illustrative lists of evidence of effectiveness in research/scholarship, teaching, and service are provided in department tenure and promotion guidelines, as well as the College’s Guidelines for the Promotion of Tenure Track Faculty. 

Research/Scholarly Activity 

As a research-intensive university, WSU’s expectations regarding the scholarly record of faculty are high. In general, tenure track candidates for promotion are expected to document a significant body of peer-reviewed published work in reputable/high impacts journals and/or academic presses. Candidates are also expected to develop an extramurally funded program of research that is designed to produce high quality scholarship. Quality of publications is more important than quantity, although there must be sufficient quantity of cohesive and thematic publications produced consistently over the pre-tenure period to provide evidence of a significant level of productivity and national recognition as an independent scholar, and the expectation that the 

faculty member’s research/scholarly program will continue, if not accelerate. Team science (i.e., interdisciplinary) work is recognized as capable of accelerating knowledge and translation to advance WSU’s land grant mission, particularly in the health sciences. The responsibility for contextualizing the quality of scholarly venues lies with the candidate. Most publications should be refereed journal articles; however, equivalent non-refereed works can also provide evidence of scholarly achievement. The candidate’s documentation should make clear how these various types of accomplishments are weighted within their specific field. 

While interdisciplinary and interprofessional collaboration are encouraged to tackle complex questions, faculty must document their contributions by noting their role in a publication (e.g., developed the initial idea, designed the study, analyzed data, obtained or provided funds or other resources, collected the data, wrote the manuscript, etc.) and clarifying whether the senior author is listed first or last, which varies across disciplines. Faculty are encouraged to contribute at least a subset of publications as sole or senior author. Similarly, the faculty member should summarize their record of grants, their role as PI, Co-PI, or Co-I, their contribution (e.g., conceptualizing the research, developing the research design, etc.). See Faculty Resources for Documenting Impact Guidelines and Forms. 

Refereed presentations do not substitute for refereed publications; however, they do serve to enhance the overall record of scholarly activity and contribute to the dissemination of the faculty member’s work and promotes networking with scholars in the discipline/profession. 

For promotion to associate professor with tenure, a faculty member should be a nationally recognized scholar with a record that presages continued impact. 

Teaching 

According to the Provost’s and College’s guidelines, teaching activities include, but are not limited to, the following: instruction (didactic courses, seminars, etc.), clinical precepting, mentoring, advising, and educational outreach. See the College of Medicine’s Educator Portfolio. 

Service 

Service includes outreach and engagement (which includes clinical service); academic service, governance, and leadership both within and external to the university; and professional/disciplinary service that supports professional organizations, advisory boards, peer review processes, etc.. Involvement in service evolves over time: assistant professors are not expected to take on major service roles in the interest of meeting demands for excellence in research/scholarship and teaching. For pre-tenure faculty, service at the department, college, university, and community level is expected to be a means to familiarize faculty with the workings of these areas and involvement in service at this time would be in a limited capacity. Service to the discipline/profession at this rank is an important means to help pre-tenure faculty establish a reputation at the national level. 

General Principles Regarding Promotion to Full Professor 

Candidates for promotion to professor must show clear and convincing evidence of persistent high levels of attainment in the criteria appropriate to their work assignment and to the mission of their units, including increasing service to the institution, professional organizations, and/or society. Documented evidence that the quality and quantity of the accomplishments of the candidate are at a significantly higher level than that expected of an associate professor is required. National, and preferably international, prominence must be demonstrated through some form of recognized achievement reviewed by appropriate professionals for promotion to professor. Only under extraordinary circumstances will a person be considered for promotion to professor prior to the end of the fifth year of service as an associate professor, with the promotion, if granted, awarded at the end of the sixth year. 

Decisions on promotion to professor in the College of Medicine take into account the following general principles. These principles are intended to expand upon the criteria detailed in department and the College’s Guidelines for the Promotion of Tenure Track Faculty. These Guidelines state that promotion to professor is based upon active and longstanding excellence in research and scholarship, teaching, and service/outreach/engagement, with the expectation of continued excellence. The candidate’s research and scholarship should be nationally and internationally recognized. Service should include college and university service, as well as service to state and national professional organizations. 

  1. National or International Reputation: Individuals promoted to professor should generally have a national or international reputation in their area of expertise. Typically, this will have been attained, at least in part, through refereed publications in national/international high impact journals, as well as refereed and invited presentations at relevant national/international conferences. 
  2. Ongoing Contributions in Teaching, Service/Outreach/Engagement, and Research/Scholarship: Individual faculty may differ in their profile of contributions. Persistent high levels of attainment in each of the traditional areas of teaching, research/scholarship, and service/outreach/engagement are expected and should be considered in decisions about promotion to professor. These accomplishments should clearly distinguish the candidate from the expectations noted for an associate professor. For example, the above principles are not intended to enable faculty to largely discontinue contributions in service or satisfactory teaching. It is expected that candidates for professor will have made positive leadership and mentoring contributions within their units/college. 
  3. Time in Rank: Per the standard appointment/offer letter, faculty spend a minimum of five years in rank as an associate professor prior to applying for promotion. As stated in the Faculty Manual, only under extraordinary circumstances will a person be recommended for promotion to professor prior to the end of their fifth year in rank as associate professor, with the promotion, if granted, awarded at the end of the sixth (6) year. Tenured faculty who are eligible for promotion are strongly encouraged to request an intensive review every four (4) to six (6) years. The career progress portion of the review can be limited to the department or college level. 

Section II: Procedures for Promotion of Career Track Faculty 

Introduction 

Career track faculty workload expectations vary considerably across sub-track and across and within departments. Faculty must be reviewed in accordance with their defined responsibilities/official job description and department, College, and University standards. Faculty workload is specified in appointment letters and updated as needed during annual review. Annual performance reviews and promotion evaluations are tied to workload distribution and designed to provide formative feedback on progress towards promotion. 

The objective of this section is to provide additional guidance for Career Track faculty (Clinical, Scholar, Research, Teaching sub-tracks) in the College of Medicine. Career track faculty may be appointed to (a) fixed one (1) to five (5) year term appointments with specific end dates determined by the nature of the assigned task, funds, or contracts; (b) contingency appointments, with end dates, in which continued employment is determined by contingencies (indefinite term); and (c) continuous appointments with no contractual end date. Continuous appointment contracts may be terminated in accordance with Washington state and federal contract law and notification requirements based on length of employment as defined in the Faculty Manual. Appointments are renewable, contingent upon the needs of the department and the college, availability of funding, and satisfactory annual performance. Career track appointments must include a specified sub-track title and rank in the appointment (e.g., clinical assistant professor, clinical associate professor, clinical professor). Each sub-track provides for advancement in rank from e.g., clinical assistant professor to clinical associate professor to clinical professor. 

Career Sub-tracks 

Descriptions of each career sub-track follow and can be found in the Faculty Manual. Descriptions of each career sub-track and guidelines for promotion within each sub-track are elaborated here: Promotion and tenure information. These guidelines include detail regarding appointment, procedures, and areas of evaluation. Career track faculty appointments may be changed if the assigned position responsibilities change. Career track faculty are reviewed in accordance with their defined responsibilities/official job description and updates therein as specified in writing, including reappointment letters and annual reviews. See Provost’s Instructions for Faculty and Administrative Professional Annual Review. Faculty position descriptions sometimes change as responsibilities are altered in response to a unit’s needs and/or a faculty member’s recognized strengths. When position descriptions change, these changes must be carefully documented in submitted promotion materials and the candidate assessed accordingly. 

Clinical Sub-track 

Clinical faculty are those whose primary responsibilities are clinical practice and/or the supervision and clinic-based instruction of professional students, interns, residents, and/or fellows. Many, but not all, will also have significant expectations in one or more of the following areas: (a) research, scholarship, or creative activity, (b) teaching, (c) outreach, (d) educational leadership, (e) administration, or (f) academic service. For example, these faculty may also play a role in the pre-clinical/pre-clerkship phases of the professional curriculum and/or perform clinical research. Promotion in this sub-track is based on significant achievement and/or a national/international recognition for excellence in clinical practice, teaching, educational leadership, and/or scholarship. 

Research Sub-track 

Faculty in the research sub-track are in research appointments who predominantly conduct research, scholarship, or creative activity and who may serve as principal or co-principal investigators on grants or contracts administered by the university. In general, these faculty will have no significant teaching or service expectations unless those responsibilities are negotiated and commensurate funding support is provided. Office and research space and start-up funds and salary may be provided. Promotion in this sub-track is typically based on traditional measures of research or scholarship, i.e., publication, extramural funding, and national or international reputation. 

Scholar Sub-track 

Faculty in the scholar sub-track are those who have significant responsibilities in at least two of the following areas:

  • Teaching
  • Student advising
  • Research or scholarship
  • Creative activity
  • Outreach
  • Practice
  • Educational leadership
  • Administration
  • Academic service

Most faculty in this sub-track will have a significant teaching or student advising responsibility. However, carrying a large teaching or advising load and receiving good student ratings is not sufficient for promotion in this sub-track. Applicants for promotion are expected to demonstrate a scholarly approach to teaching, evidence of teaching effectiveness, and achievement or recognition in one or more of the additional areas (e.g., research/scholarship, educational leadership, outreach, etc.). 

Teaching Sub-track 

Faculty in the teaching sub-track are those whose primary responsibility is teaching or student advising and with little or no additional expectations in research, scholarship, creative activity, leadership, or academic service. Faculty with a teaching appointment will often have large teaching commitments according to their assignment and contract. In some colleges, teaching may involve teaching in a clinical setting. Promotion criteria will be determined by the department and college but should include evidence of teaching effectiveness and innovation. Carrying a large teaching load and receiving good student ratings is not sufficient for promotion in this sub-track. Applicants for promotion are expected to demonstrate innovation, a scholarly approach to teaching and evidence of teaching effectiveness beyond student reviews. 

Annual Review of Career Track Faculty 

Annual reviews provide faculty the opportunity to highlight, reflect on, and obtain feedback about their accomplishments and how this work enhances their overall career. Annual reviews provide an appraisal of the career track faculty member’s progress toward promotion. 

The goal of the annual review is to ready faculty for promotion review. Although some materials are not required for annual review, it is recommended that faculty draft and update regularly all materials that are required for the intensive review and promotion review. Faculty should consult the Provost’s Promotion and Tenure Guidelines about required materials and processes, which are updated annually and usually posted in the spring preceding the review cycle (e.g., May 2022 for the 2022-2023 review cycle). 

An abridged review (i.e., short-form annual review) is conducted every other year for career track (and tenured) faculty making satisfactory progress*. The faculty member must submit an updated Activity Insight report, updated curriculum vitae, and a short description of accomplishments since their last review. The faculty member is given a rating of “satisfactory or better” or “less than satisfactory.” If the annual review rating is “less than satisfactory,” the written report must include an explanation for the decision, and all subsequent annual reviews will be comprehensive or intensive until a rating of “satisfactory or better” is achieved. An invitation should be extended from the department chair to meet and discuss the review. 

A comprehensive review is conducted every other year for career track (and tenured) faculty (and in other years when requested by the faculty member or department chair). *Materials to be submitted by career track faculty for the annual comprehensive review are listed below. 

  • Updated Activity Insight report; 
  • Updated curriculum vitae; 
  • Summary of accomplishments, which includes an overview of the position (including percentages of appointment), and teaching accomplishments, research/scholarly contributions, and service/outreach/engagement accomplishments, as appropriate to the sub-track appointment. The summary must include a review of annual accomplishments as well as a cumulative review of progress since appointment (or since last promotion). 

Career Track By Year

 Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 
Abridged^ Comp Abridged Comp Intensive* Eligible for promotion 

*You are strongly encouraged to request an intensive review in the spring prior to submitting materials for promotion consideration in the subsequent fall. 

^Chair may elect to begin alternating annual reviews with comprehensive in Year 1 

Intensive/Career Progress Review 

Each intensive review results in two reports: a comprehensive review report and a career progress report. The chair must meet with the candidate to discuss both reports. 

The comprehensive portion of the intensive review is conducted as stated above. The career progress portion of the intensive review is coordinated by the chair and normally requires participation from all faculty and administrators eligible to perform promotion evaluations for the candidate. All career track faculty and tenure track faculty in the department (except those with personal conflicts of interest [e.g., spouses, family members] who are allowed to abstain) holding the rank to which the candidate aspires must complete an advisory recommendation to grant or not grant promotion. It is the responsibility of the chair to ensure that all faculty eligible to submit advisory recommendations during annual intensive review have available at the time of their deliberations all documents listed above. If fewer than five department faculty are eligible to submit advisory recommendations, the chair will form an augmented advisory committee with the concurrence of the Dean and Chancellor. The candidate does not provide any input on the formation of the augmented advisory committee. Advisory committee members may change across intensive reviews and promotion reviews due to changes in the department’s eligible faculty. Augmented advisory committee members may change at the discretion of the department chair, Dean and Chancellor for intensive review, and may change at the discretion of the department chair, Dean, Chancellor, and Provost for promotion review. 

Unit faculty/augmented committee members complete the Intensive Review Faculty Evaluation Form. The department chair prepares a written summary evaluating progress based on the individual faculty evaluations, the discussion at the meeting of advisory faculty committee, and the chair’s own evaluation. The chair should provide the candidate with a copy of the comprehensive review report and the career progress report prior to their meeting to discuss the results and implications of the intensive review and invite the faculty member to react to the written evaluation. The faculty member and the chair sign and date the narrative portion of the career progress review evaluation. 

The materials to be submitted for the intensive review are listed below (* also included in the comprehensive review): 

  • *Updated Activity Insight report; 
  • *Updated curriculum vitae; 
  • *Summary of accomplishments, which includes an overview of the position (including percentages of appointment), teaching accomplishments, research and scholarly accomplishments, academic leadership and administrative contributions, and service/ outreach/engagement contributions, as appropriate to the faculty’s sub-track and assigned workload. The summary should include a review of annual accomplishments as well as a cumulative review of progress toward promotion. 
  • Educator Portfolio (for those engaged in teaching and/or mentoring)
  • Statements (e.g., research/scholarship, DEI work, context, service/outreach/engagement, COVID-19 Impact Statements – see: Faculty Resources for Documenting Impact and 2020 Guidance on Writing COVID-19 Impact Statements. Guidelines and Forms. All statements are limited to no more than two pages each. Faculty who prefer to do a single, integrated statement may do so; however, this statement should be limited to 5 pages (see Provost’s annual review instructions Guidelines and Forms. The College requires faculty appointed to the research and scholar career sub-tracks to submit a research/scholarship statement for the intensive review and promotion review. Candidates whose scope of work for the department, college, and/or university includes significant responsibilities in administrative or academic leadership should include an administrative/academic leadership statement (maximum two pages) in their portfolio. All other statements are optional. The research/scholarship statement clarifies the goals and objectives, themes, success, and challenges of their research or scholarly program. The context statement may elaborate one’s workload, include expectations placed on a faculty member by circumstances extant at research stations or regional campuses, the requirement of joint appointments or other special circumstances such as commitments to student groups. 
  • Supporting Materials in electronic form, wherever possible. DOIs can be supplied on the CV for manuscripts that are available electronically. Supporting material may include books, NIH Biosketch, selected publications, Web of Science Citation Map, and other evidence of the candidate’s teaching, research, scholarly, creative, and service/outreach/engagement activities. 

The career progress portion of the intensive review is coordinated by the chair and normally requires participation from all faculty and administrators eligible to perform tenure or promotion evaluations for the candidate. All tenured faculty members in the department (except those with personal conflicts of interest [e.g., spouses, family members] who are allowed to abstain) must complete an advisory recommendation to grant or not grant tenure and promotion. The chair prepares an administrative evaluation and recommendation, including the results of the faculty advisory recommendations. For pre-tenured faculty, the intensive review procedures will match those for final tenure consideration, except that external professional evaluations/letters are not required. 

Faculty Responses to Annual Reviews 

After receiving the annual review report, the chair shall provide the faculty member a minimum of ten (10) business days to sign the report, indicating that faculty member has had the opportunity to read the report and to discuss it with the chair and other appropriate faculty supervisors. A faculty member’s dissent regarding contents of the report may be appended to the signed report. When a dissent is appended, the faculty member must receive written acknowledgement within fifteen (15) business days that the statement has been reviewed by the Dean and Chancellor. At the same time that a response is sent to the faculty member, the Dean forwards to the Provost the annual review, the faculty member’s response to that review, and the Dean’s response to the faculty member. After receiving this information, the Provost has an additional fifteen (15) business days to provide a written acknowledgement to the faculty member and the Dean that all statements have been reviewed. 

Career Track Promotions 

Only under extraordinary circumstances will a faculty member be considered for promotion to the next rank prior to the end of their fifth year of service in rank, with the promotion, if granted, awarded at the end of the sixth (6) year. For faculty appointed part-time, consideration for promotion may occur later than the end of the fifth year. As stated in the WSU Faculty Manual: “The standards for tenure and promotion are the same for part-time faculty as for full-time faculty members except that part-time faculty members may be granted a proportionally longer period in which to meet these standards. For example, a faculty member with a 50% appointment should be given a probationary period of up to 12 years, whereas a faculty member with a 75% appointment should be given a probationary period of up to 8 years.” Therefore, for example, if a career track faculty member with a 50% appointment requests consideration for promotion prior to their 12th year in rank (unless it is stated otherwise in their appointment letter), the faculty member must seek approval from their chair, Dean and Provost for “early” consideration. 

As stated in the WSU Faculty Manual: “Faculty eligible for promotion are strongly encouraged to request an intensive review, in lieu of a comprehensive or abridged review, every four (4) to six (6) years to help prepare materials for promotion. Notice of the request to undergo an intensive review by the faculty member must be communicated by the due date set by the chair. It is within the authority of the chair or dean to recommend an intensive review, but it is the faculty member’s purview to choose between an intensive or comprehensive review.” At the time the faculty member elects to seek promotion, the department chair should recommend that the career track faculty member undergo an intensive review that involves all career-track, tenure-track, and tenured faculty in the department at or above the rank applied for. If fewer than five career track and tenure track department faculty hold the necessary rank, the chair will form an augmented faculty advisory committee with concurrence of the Dean and Provost’s approval. In extraordinary circumstances, early promotion may be considered only after consultation with the department chair and Dean, with approval from the Provost. In consultation with the department chair and the Faculty Rank, Promotion, and Tenure Committee (FRPT), the Dean decides which promotion cases to associate professor are to be forwarded to the Provost and will notify each candidate of the decision, in writing, within ten (10) business days. If the decision is to not forward the packet, the faculty member will be given a written justification. In addition, the faculty member will be given a minimum of five (5) working days to exercise the right to have the packet forwarded to the Provost, regardless of the Dean’s decision. Career track faculty not seeking promotion or not granted promotion may remain at their current rank and be reappointed to subsequent terms at that rank after their sixth year of service, contingent upon funding, satisfactory performance and department and college need. Individuals who are not promoted may request promotion consideration at a later date. See Promotion and tenure information. 

Similar to tenure track promotion, at least four review letters are required for career track promotions and may be from either internal or external reviewers. These letters may come from WSU faculty outside the candidate’s home department or from others familiar with the candidate’s role (e.g., professional associations or external agencies). The same process for soliciting reviewers is applied as for tenure track faculty (see section 1.0 Guidelines for the Appointment and Promotion of Career Track Faculty within the specific career sub-track guidelines), as well as Guidance for External/Internal Letters Tenure Promotion All Tracks Promotion and tenure information. 

Promotion to Professor in the career track requires significantly more than time in rank and continuing accomplishments beyond those reviewed for promotion to Associate Professor, including the expectation for continuing growth and achievement for any faculty member being considered for promotion to Professor. Candidates for promotion to professor must show clear and convincing evidence of persistent high levels of attainment in the criteria appropriate to their work assignment and to the mission of their units, including increasing service to the institution, professional organizations, and/or society. Documented evidence that the quality and quantity of the accomplishments of the candidate are at a significantly higher level than that expected of an associate professor is required. Attainment of the rank of professor is an indication that an individual has made, and continues to make, progressive contributions to a major area of the individual’s work assignment. By way of example, innovation and leadership is expected from all full professors (regardless of track) and from any faculty member applying for or aspiring to promotion to full professor. Only under extraordinary circumstances will career track faculty members be considered for promotion to Professor prior to the end of the fifth year of service as an associate professor (i.e., during the sixth year of service as an associate professor), with the promotion, if granted, awarded at the end of the sixth year. Candidacy for promotion to professor may be initiated by the faculty member, one or more departmental professors, or the department chair. National, and preferably international, prominence must be demonstrated through some form of recognized achievement reviewed by appropriate professionals for promotion to professor. 

Candidates for promotion should submit a complete set of materials in accordance with instructions received each year from the Provost’s office Guidelines and Forms. Candidates must submit: 

  • Updated curriculum vitae; 
  • Educator Portfolio (required of teaching sub-track faculty and faculty appointed to other sub-tracks whose workload and contributions include components enumerated in the Educator Portfolio). 
  • Statements (e.g., research/scholarship, clinical activity, DEI work, context, service/outreach/engagement, COVID-19 Impact Statements – see: 2020 Guidance on Documenting COVID-19 Impact and Faculty Resources for Documenting Impact. Guidelines and Forms. All statements are limited to no more than two pages each. The College requires research sub-track and scholar sub-track faculty to submit a research/scholarship statement for promotion review and requires clinical sub-track faculty to submit a clinical practice/clinical instruction activity statement. The research/scholarship statement clarifies the goals and objectives, themes, success, and challenges of their research or scholarly program. The clinical activity statement clarifies the goals and objectives, approaches, successes and challenges of their clinical activities. Candidates in the scholar sub-track active in clinical practice should prepare a clinical practice/clinical instruction activity statement that succinctly summarizes their accomplishments. Candidates whose scope of work for the department, college, and/or university includes significant responsibilities in administrative or academic leadership should include an administrative/academic leadership statement (maximum two pages) in their portfolio. Unless specifically noted in this paragraph per sub-track, all other statements are optional. The context statement may elaborate one’s workload, include expectations placed on a faculty member by circumstances extant at research stations or regional campuses, the requirement of joint appointments or other special circumstances such as commitments to student groups. 
  • Supporting Materials in electronic form, wherever possible. DOIs can be supplied on the CV for manuscripts that are available electronically. Supporting material may include books, 
  • NIH Biosketch, selected publications, Web of Science Citation Map, and other evidence of the candidate’s teaching, clinical, research, scholarly, creative, service/outreach/engagement, and administrative/academic leadership activities. 

In addition, the department chair solicits at least four review letters for career track promotions. Letters may be from either internal (i.e., WSU employees) or external reviewers. Where appropriate, letter writers should hold a rank at least equal to the rank to which the candidate aspires. Letters should not be solicited from people who have a conflict of interest, such as a personal relationship with the candidate that goes beyond that of colleague (e.g., mentor, collaborators, partners, faculty who have conflict with candidate). Nor should letters be solicited from WSU faculty serving on the candidate’s faculty advisory committee. Generally, reviewers should be provided the faculty member’s complete packet. However, for candidates in the research career sub-track where external reviewers are asked to establish whether the candidate has a national reputation and how the candidate’s research/scholarship compares to others at the same or similar time in rank, the chair may limit the packet for these external reviewers to the candidate’s updated CV, research statement, and DOI links or PDFs of selective publications. 

The chair contacts the reviewers requesting their evaluation of the candidate’s qualifications for promotion. The chair’s requests for letters should be couched in neutral terms, asking for “evaluation” rather than “support” and stating that the candidate is being “reviewed” not “recommended” for promotion. The chair should assure that the language in the letter to external/internal reviewers encourages an impartial, unbiased review of the candidate’s professional work and stature in the discipline. 

Candidates may provide the names of two of the four reviewers; however, candidates should not contact potential reviewers directly. At least two of the letters in the final promotion portfolio must be from individuals not supplied by the faculty member. In the best interest of the candidate, and with transparency, the chair will contact the faculty member (the candidate) and give them one week to provide names of additional reviewers should the candidate’s initial choices not be available. Candidates who have pursued sustained work in communities, state and national agencies may suggest among their possible reviewers one or more evaluators (academic or non-academic) possessing significant experience in communities of practice relevant to the candidate’s scholarship. The external letters are available for review by the faculty advisory committee, as well as the chair, FRPT, Dean, Chancellor, and the Provost. See Guidance for External/Internal Letters Tenure Promotion All Tracks Promotion and tenure information | Elson S. Floyd College of Medicine | Washington State University (wsu.edu) All letters received by the department by the time the case is forwarded to the Dean’s office must be included in the file. 

It is required that the faculty advisory committee discuss the candidate’s case for promotion, including committee members at all campuses. Typically, the department chair convenes this meeting that allows all faculty members of the advisory committee, regardless of location, to provide and to hear information about any candidate’s progress and allow questions about progress to be asked and answered. 

The promotion packet (excluding annual reviews but including the external/internal letters) is then reviewed by all members of the faculty advisory committee. Each member must complete an advisory recommendation to grant or not grant promotion. The promotion packet reviewed by the faculty advisory committee (as well as all involved in subsequent stages of the review process [i.e., FRPT, Dean, Chancellor, and Provost]) must include all materials provided the external reviewers, a brief bio of each external/internal reviewer, identifying which were nominated by the candidate, and a copy of the letter sent to the external/internal reviewers seeking their evaluation, as well as all other materials prepared by the candidate (which should include an Educator Portfolio for those engaged in teaching and mentoring, and may also include a context statement, COVID impact statement, service/outreach/engagement statement, and DEI statement) to allow the faculty advisory committee to assess the candidate’s overall performance in all areas of the candidate’s workload. 

The chair prepares an administrative evaluation and recommendation, including a summary of the faculty advisory recommendations. The chair forwards the individual faculty advisory recommendations, the chair’s evaluation, along with the entire packet reviewed by the faculty advisory committee and the chair to the Dean. Concurrently, the chair forwards the administrative evaluation and recommendation and the candidate’s packet (excluding the annual reviews and the faculty advisory recommendations) to the FRPT. FRPT assigns a subcommittee of three members holding the rank to which the candidate aspires or higher to evaluate the candidate’s packet and provide a recommendation to the full FRPT. If there are fewer than three FRPT members of appropriate rank, the FRPT chair invites non-FRPT members from across the College to serve on the subcommittee. FRPT members from the candidate’s department must recuse themselves from discussions regarding those candidates except to provide clarification of a department process, procedures, or practice, etc. The FRPT chair submits the advisory recommendation to the Dean. The Dean evaluates the candidate and forwards to the Chancellor for review. 

The entire promotion packet is provided to the Office of the Provost (typically during the last week of October) for review and a final decision on the granting of promotion. Candidates are typically notified of this decision in the subsequent spring. All promotions are effective July 1 (for faculty on annual appointments) and August 16 (for faculty on academic appointments) of the year after the promotion packet was submitted. If promotion is not granted, faculty may remain at their current rank and be reappointed to subsequent terms at that rank, contingent upon funding, satisfactory performance and department and college need. Individuals who are not promoted may request promotion consideration at a later date once they and their chair believe they have successfully addressed the issues that led to an unsuccessful initial application. 

All promotion cases to associate professor must be forwarded to the Office of the Provost; however, the Dean, in consultation with the Chancellor may decide not to forward cases for promotion to Professor. The Dean must notify candidates in writing about whether their case for promotion to Professor will be forwarded to the Office of the Provost. Notification must occur within 10 working days of the decision. If the decision is to not forward the packet, the faculty member will be given a written justification. In addition, the faculty member will be given a minimum of five (5) working days to exercise the right to have the packet forwarded to the Provost, regardless of the Dean’s decision. 

Criteria for Awarding Promotion to Associate Professor and Full Professor 

The following expectations are reproduced from the college’s career sub-track guidelines for promotion of career sub-track faculty: Promotion and tenure information | Elson S. Floyd College of Medicine | Washington State University (wsu.edu) Areas of evaluation and a non-prioritized, illustrative list of evidence of effectiveness in the relevant domains are also provided in the respective sub-track guidelines at the preceding link. 

The College holds that the quantity of work in any given area, while potentially significant, is by itself an insufficient criterion for promotion. Rather, the following characteristics will inform the evaluation of candidate performance in any of the areas identified in the faculty’s assigned scope of work. 

  • Growth: candidates should demonstrate increasing levels of accomplishment, responsibility, engagement, and/or leadership. 
  • Coherence: candidates should demonstrate developing a particular expertise and a recognizable professional profile. 
  • Impact: candidates should contribute to the advancement of a scholarly field; curricula, programs, or departments; colleges, campuses, or the university as a whole; individual students or student groups; initiatives in research, scholarship, or creative activity; opportunities for public engagement and policy influence; or other defined areas of work beyond individual professional development. Activity that has not secured specific outputs or results, such as scholarship “in progress” or new programs still in development, will be recognized but thus accorded lesser significance. 
Expectations for Promotion to Clinical Associate Professor 

Promotion to Clinical Associate Professor is most frequently determined by a continuing excellence in clinical practice and/or instruction and an emerging record of sustained accomplishment in the secondary area(s) relevant to the candidate’s appointment (e.g., administration, academic leadership, outreach). In their clinical practice, candidates are expected to be active clinicians in good standing with an ability to effectively communicate with colleagues and be effective clinicians while often integrating clinical instruction and evaluation into their own practice. Promotion to clinical associate professor requires demonstration and evidence of clinical excellence (i.e., at a minimum “strong performance beyond satisfactory”). Note: For clinical sub-track part-time faculty who precept/teach both college students and others enrolled in another medical school, review of their precepting/teaching effectiveness is focused on their interactions with college students. However, part-time teaching sub-track faculty may present their service/outreach/engagement provided in conjunction with their affiliation to another school or hospital in their promotion packet for the assessment of the candidate’s performance relative to WSU standards for promotion. 

Expectations for Promotion to Clinical Professor 

The clinical practice and instruction of candidates for promotion to clinical professor will be evaluated in adherence with the criteria detailed above. In particular, candidates are expected to have extended their individual excellence in clinical practice and instruction to broader positive impacts on students, communities, and the clinic(s) they serve. Where appropriate and available, candidates will also be expected to have pursued leadership roles in education, clinical program assessment and development, and/or community service programs that serve the mission of the clinic, the department and the University. In their primary role of clinical practice and instruction, candidates for promotion to clinical professor who have teaching expectations must demonstrate continuing effectiveness, as well as elements of pedagogical growth and active leadership beyond that which would characterize an initial promotion and to have provided consistently high-quality, evidence-based, and empathetic care to patients and/or clients. Particular attention will also be paid to the candidate’s ability to communicate clearly and effectively; the quality of participation in clinic programs and/or student instruction; and the capacity for further development as a clinician. Clinical Professors are individuals who are nationally or internationally recognized in their areas of responsibility as specified in the letter of offer (and updated as needed) and annual reviews. They have made sustained and significant contributions to their field and have gained recognition outside the University as a result. Where student/fellow/trainee supervision and mentoring are included in workload expectations, the candidate is expected to have demonstrated effective communication, support for student/fellow/trainee’s professional development, and adherence to departmental or unit expectations. Promotion to clinical professor requires demonstration and evidence of excellence (i.e., at a minimum “strong performance beyond satisfactory”) in clinical/professional practice and teaching, and other areas of significant responsibility within the faculty member’s assigned scope of work (e.g., research/scholarship/creative activity, administration and/or academic leadership, educational leadership, and/or service/outreach/engagement). 

Expectations for Promotion: Research Sub-Track 

As a research-intensive university, WSU’s expectations regarding the scholarly record of research sub-track faculty are high. In general, candidates for promotion in the research career sub-track are expected to document a significant body of peer-reviewed published work in reputable/high impacts journals and/or academic presses. Candidates are also expected to develop an extramurally funded program of research that is designed to produce high quality scholarship. Quality of publications is more important than quantity, although there must be sufficient quantity of cohesive and thematic publications produced consistently over the pre-tenure period to provide evidence of a significant level of productivity and national recognition as an independent scholar, and the expectation that the faculty member’s research/scholarly program will continue, if not accelerate. Team science (i.e., interdisciplinary) work is recognized as capable of accelerating knowledge and translation to advance WSU’s land grant mission, particularly in the health sciences. The responsibility for contextualizing the quality of scholarly venues lies with the candidate. Most publications should be refereed journal articles; however, equivalent non-refereed works can also provide evidence of scholarly achievement. The candidate’s documentation should make clear how these various types of accomplishments are weighted within their specific field. 

While interdisciplinary and interprofessional collaboration are encouraged to tackle complex questions, faculty must document their contributions by noting their role in a publication (e.g., developed the initial idea, designed the study, analyzed data, obtained or provided funds or other resources, collected the data, wrote the manuscript, etc.) and clarifying whether the senior author is listed first or last, which varies across disciplines. Faculty are encouraged to contribute at least a subset of publications as sole or senior author. Similarly, the faculty member should summarize their record of grants, their role as PI, Co-PI, or Co-I, their contribution (e.g., conceptualizing the research, developing the research design, etc.). (See 

Refereed presentations do not substitute for refereed publications; however, they do serve to enhance the overall record of scholarly activity and contribute to the dissemination of the faculty member’s work and promotes networking with scholars in the discipline/profession. 

Expectations for Promotion to Research Associate Professor 

Initial promotion within this career track is most frequently determined by a candidate’s record of accomplishment, availability of funding, and growth in the area of research, scholarship, and/or entrepreneurial and commercialization activity. Candidates who work collaboratively in laboratories, institutes, centers, or multi-person initiatives are also expected to contribute positively to the effectiveness of such groups. Evidence of such accomplishment will include considerations of productivity in publications, grants, and patents, and the successful application of research to partnerships with industry, governmental agencies, and other public or private entities. The candidate will be expected to demonstrate in such areas an emerging national and international reputation, as well as the capacity and likelihood for continued excellence. Where student/fellow/trainee supervision and mentoring are included in workload expectations, the candidate is expected to have demonstrated effective communication and support of the student/fellow/trainee’s professional development. For promotion to research associate professor, a faculty member should be a nationally recognized scholar with a record that presages continued impact. The candidate must provide evidence of excellence in research, scholarship, and/or creative activity (i.e., at a minimum “strong performance beyond satisfactory”). 

Expectations for Promotion to Research Professor 

Promotion to this rank is most frequently determined by a record of sustained accomplishment in the area of research, scholarship, and/or creative activity (e.g., entrepreneurial/commercialization activity). Candidates who work collaboratively in labs, institutes, centers, or multi-person initiatives are also expected not only to contribute positively to such groups but also take on informal or formal leadership roles that amplify the effectiveness of these groups. Evidence of such accomplishment will include considerations of productivity in publication, grants, and patents, and the successful application of research to partnerships with industry, governmental agencies, and other public or private entities. The candidate will be expected to demonstrate in such areas an established national or international reputation, as well as the capacity and likelihood for continued excellence. Where student supervision and mentoring are included in workload expectations, the candidate is expected to have demonstrated effective communication, support for student professional development, and adherence to departmental or unit expectations. Where 

student/fellow/trainee supervision and mentoring are included in workload expectations, the candidate is expected to have demonstrated effective communication and support for the student/fellow/trainee’s professional development. The candidate’s research, scholarship, and/or creative activity should be nationally and internationally recognized. Faculty seeking promotion to research professor should confer with their chair one year prior to seeking promotion. Promotion to research professor requires demonstration and evidence of research excellence (i.e., at a minimum “strong performance beyond satisfactory”). 

Expectations for Promotion to Scholar Associate Professor 

Initial promotion within this career track is most frequently determined by a candidate’s record of accomplishment and growth in their areas of focus (e.g., research, scholarship, teaching, clinical activity, and/or entrepreneurial and commercialization activity, administration, academic leadership, outreach). Candidates who work collaboratively in laboratories, institutes, centers, or multi-person initiatives are also expected to contribute positively to the effectiveness of such groups. Evidence of such accomplishment will include considerations of productivity in publications, grants, and patents, and the successful application of research to partnerships with industry, governmental agencies, and other public or private entities. The candidate will be expected to demonstrate in such areas an emerging national and international reputation, as well as the capacity and likelihood for continued excellence. Where student/fellow/trainee supervision and mentoring are included in workload expectations, the candidate is expected to have demonstrated effective communication and support of the student/fellow/trainee’s professional development. Promotion to scholar associate professor requires demonstration and evidence of excellence in at least two of the following areas: (a) teaching, (b) student advising, (c) research/scholarship, (d) creative activity, (e) outreach, (f) practice, (g) educational leadership, (h) administration, (i) academic leadership, or (j) academic service. (i.e., at a minimum “strong performance beyond satisfactory”). Faculty promoted to the rank of scholar associate professor may be appointed to a term of up to five years (with or without a rolling horizon) based on department and college need. Note: For scholar sub-track part-time faculty who precept/teach both college students and others enrolled in another medical school, review of their precepting/teaching effectiveness is focused on their interactions with college students. However, part-time scholar sub-track faculty may present their service/outreach/engagement provided in conjunction with their affiliation to another school or hospital in their promotion packet for the assessment of the candidate’s performance relative to WSU standards for promotion. 

Expectations for Promotion to Scholar Professor 

Promotion to this rank is most frequently determined by a record of sustained accomplishment in the faculty member’s negotiated scope of work (e.g., teaching, research, scholarship, clinical activity, creative activity [e.g., entrepreneurial/commercialization activity], academic leadership or administration). Candidates who work collaboratively in labs, institutes, centers, or multi-person initiatives are also expected not only to contribute positively to such groups but also take on informal or formal leadership roles that amplify the effectiveness of these groups. Evidence of such accomplishment will include considerations of productivity in publication, grants, and patents, and the successful application of scholar to partnerships with industry, governmental agencies, and other 

public or private entities. The candidate will be expected to demonstrate in such areas an established national or international reputation, as well as the capacity and likelihood for continued excellence. Where student/fellow/trainee supervision and mentoring are included in Guidelines for the Promotion of Career Track Faculty: Scholar Sub-Track Page 6 of 10 workload expectations, the candidate is expected to have demonstrated effective communication and support for the student/fellow/trainee’s professional development. The candidate’s teaching, research, scholarship, clinical activity and/or creative activity should be nationally and internationally recognized. 

Expectations for Promotion to Teaching Associate Professor 

Candidates for promotion to teaching associate professor are expected to demonstrate that their teaching effectively supports course and unit learning outcomes, and that it reflects the current state of knowledge and pedagogy in the discipline. Candidates for promotion to teaching associate professor should demonstrate the capacity to effectively communicate course content to students, and their course and assignment designs should be accessible to all students. These designs should also support student success and, where appropriate, active learning. Promotion to teaching associate professor requires demonstration and evidence of teaching excellence (i.e., at a minimum “strong performance beyond satisfactory”). Note: For teaching sub-track part-time faculty who teach both college students and others enrolled in another medical school, review of their precepting effectiveness is focused on their interactions with college students. However, part-time teaching sub-track faculty may present their service/outreach/engagement provided in conjunction with their affiliation to another school or hospital in their promotion packet for the assessment of the candidate’s performance relative to WSU standards for promotion. 

Expectations for Promotion to Teaching Professor 

Candidates for promotion to teaching professor are expected to demonstrate continuing effectiveness in the classroom, as well as elements of pedagogical growth and leadership beyond that which would characterize promotion to teaching associate professor. Candidates for promotion to teaching professor should demonstrate not only sustained excellence in classroom or clinical teaching but also innovation and further growth in their pedagogy, course and assignment design, and efforts toward student success. Teaching professors are individuals who are nationally or internationally recognized for their teaching and teaching innovations, or other contributions in areas of responsibility as specified in the letter of offer and annual reviews. They have made sustained and significant contributions to their field and have gained recognition outside the university as a result. Promotion to teaching professor requires demonstration and evidence of teaching excellence (i.e., at a minimum “strong performance beyond satisfactory”)