Instructional Academic Staff Committee
Year-End Report for the Academic Year, 2011-2012
As per our charge for the 2011-2012 academic year, the Instructional Academic Staff
Committee met to review the procedures for IAS career progression. Two members of the IAS
Career Progression Committee, Erin Hussey and Sandra Koster, were also members of the
Instructional Academic Staff Committee and provided us with valuable information in terms of
the difficulties associated with using the current guidelines as written. We also received some
feedback from another IAS Career Progression Committee member, Elizabeth Knowles.
Based upon our discussions as a committee and the feedback we received from members of the
IAS Career Progression Committee we made the following suggested changes to the process:
1. Make a delineation in the IAS career progression grid to reflect the fact that the
progression to Distinguished Lecturer/Distinguished Clinical Professor is rare and not
part of the normal progression. While this information is stated in other career
progression materials, the grid is somewhat misleading in this respect.
2. Realign the titles in the lecturer series and the clinical professor line. Specifically, the
Distinguished Lecturer title should line up with the Distinguished Clinical Professor. The
requirements for the move to Distinguished Clinical Professor are currently greater than
they are for a Distinguished Lecturer: 30 semesters of teaching in higher education vs.
20 semesters and “external recognition for significant contributions in service, research,
or clinical practice” vs. “recognition for significant contributions in service, research, or
clinical practice”.
3. Remove the requirement of a terminal degree in the progression to Distinguished
Lecturer and Distinguished Clinical Professor. The reasons for this recommendation are
stated below:

If a terminal degree is not required in the hiring process why require it for
progression?

Don’t we want all IAS to aspire to being Distinguished? The requirement of a
terminal degree has the potential to create perverse incentives for those who do
not hold a terminal degree in their field.

If someone has an extraordinary record of teaching, scholarship, and service why
would we want to prevent them from achieving this rank?

Currently there is a discrepancy between the IAS title descriptions on the UW-L
web page and the requirements in the grid. The title description for a
Distinguished Lecturer reads “will normally hold a terminal degree related to the
discipline and documented certification or license if required by the specific
program or department.” For Distinguished Clinical Profess it reads “Terminal
degree in discipline would generally be required.”
o The IAS committee recommends that a terminal degree should not be identified
as a required or typical component needed for IAS progression.
o However, at a very minimum it is recommended this wording ("generally holds"
or "normally holds") also be used in the grid. This change would inform the
Career Progression Committee (CPC) that an exceptional candidate who meets
the stated expectations of excellence and external recognition could be
supported for progression even without holding a terminal degree.
4. There are currently four different documents on the UW-L web page that provide IAS
with information on career progression requirements: A Guide to Instruction Academic
Staff (IAS) Career Progression and Portfolio Development at UW-L, the career
progression grid, Teaching/PD/Service Measures Worksheets, and a Career Progression
FAQ sheet.
Not all of these information sources are consistent with one another. For example, the
worksheet indicates that the only materials “required” for the career progression
committee’s review of teaching are a statement of teaching philosophy, SEI scores, and
a department career progression review letter. The guide, on the other hand, states
that a candidate “should” include other materials. Members of the current IAS Career
Progression committee reported that these ambiguities made it more difficult to make
career progression decisions.
One potential solution would be to revise the guide so that it includes all information
related to career progression and place links within the grid to the corresponding
section in the guide.
5. Another ambiguity brought to our attention by the current IAS CPC was the need to
improve clarity in the distinction between a “strong record” and a “sustained record” in
the area of teaching as well as in the area of professional development/creative
activity/scholarship and/or service. More clarification in this area is recommended as
well.
Respectfully submitted,
Laurie L. Strangman
Chair, Instructional Academic Staff Committee